Relationship mark scheme

Question 1

Mark Scheme – June 2018 “Outline an evolutionary explanation for partner preferences. Explain one limitation of an evolutionary explanation for partner preferences. [6 marks].”

Answer 1

AO1:
Possible content:
· Partner preference/mating strategy is driven by sexual selection.
· Males/females choose partner in order to maximise their reproductive success. (Inter and intra sexual selection).
· Characteristics that maximise reproductive success are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations.
· So, partner preferences evolve in a population.
· Examples of male/female strategies, e.g., Courtship rituals, mate-guarding etc.
· Knowledge of explanation embedded in evidence.
AO3:
Possible evaluation points:
· Use of evidence to refute evolutionary theory.
· Evolutionary theory cannot explain non-heterosexual relationships as easily.
· Theory is less relevant where women have a more independent role in some modern societies.
· Societal and cultural changes such availability of contraception mean that evolutionary pressures are less relevant.

Question 2

Mark Scheme – June 2019 Outline and briefly discuss the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. [8 marks]

Answer 2

Marks for this question: AO1 = 3 and AO3 = 5
AO1:
Possible content:
· Traits that increase reproductive success, e.g., strength, height, aggression, wide hips etc confer an evolutionary advantage.
· Individuals with these traits are more likely to survive and pass on the genes responsible.
· Inter-sexual selection where traits increase ‘attractiveness’ and/or induce members of the opposite sex to mate
with them e.g., Sexual selection via female mate choice e.g., males show good genes/resources, females show youth/fertility.
· Intra-sexual selection where traits allow an individual to compete with members of the same sex for access to mating opportunities e.g., Male competition.
· Anisogamy – differences in male/female sex cells result in different strategies for reproductive success.
· Human reproductive strategies – male courtship rituals, mate guarding, sneak copulation; female sexy sons hypothesis (fisher), preference for long courtship.
AO3:
Possible discussion points:
· Sound scientific basis – founded on evolutionary theory.
· Problems with evolutionary explanations – falsifiability, pseudoscientific.
· Consistent with anisogamy – differences in male and female sex cells; women must use their gametes
wisely; men have many gametes so can be less choosy.
· Supporting evidence, e.g., Clark and Hatfield (1989) female choosiness; Pawlowski & Dunbar older women
disguise age to appear fertile (1999).
· Not as relevant to today’s society – influence of changes in social attitudes and expectations, e.g., women
now less dependent than previous generations so male resources are less important * not consistent with male preference for ‘the older woman’
· More difficult to apply to non-heterosexual relationships.

Question 3

What is meant by self-disclosure? [2 marks

Answer 3

· Revealing personal information about the self to another person.
· Information can be superficial, low risk/breadth of disclosure, e.g., work or more intimate, high-risk/depth of disclosure, e.g., wishes, fears, attitudes and aspirations.
· Has the general effect of increasing attractiveness and closeness; encourages reciprocal disclosure.

Question 4

Mark Scheme – June 2023 Outline one strength and one limitation of self-disclosure as an explanation for attraction in romantic relationships. [6 marks]

Answer 4

Possible strengths:
* consistent with social penetration theory which suggests that for a relationship to develop
partners must keep disclosing further personal information
* use of evidence to support the role of self-disclosure as an explanation, e.g. correlations between levels of self-disclosure and satisfaction with the relationship
* compatibility with filter theory; self-disclosure enables assessment of similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs
* supported by evidence which shows that too much, too early can be off-putting to potential partner – acceptability depends on stage of relationship and appropriateness of the content.
Possible limitations:
* contrast with the relative importance of other factors, e.g., physical
attractiveness/equity/social exchange
* cultural limitations; self-disclosure may be less appropriate for romantic relationships in cultures where partners are not allowed free choice; research is often culture specific
* difficult to determine cause and effect, i.e., whether self-disclosure leads to a stronger relationship or whether having a stronger relationship leads to greater self-disclosure.

Question 5

Describe and evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships. [16 marks].

Answer 5

AO1:
Possible content:
· An economic theory of romantic relationships.
· Considers how partners exchange rewards and costs.
· Assumes that those who offer rewards are attractive and those who are perceived to involve great cost are less attractive.
· Thibaut and Kelley’s 4-stage model – sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation.
· Uses comparison level and comparison level alternatives.
· Predicts that relationships that benefit both parties will succeed whereas relationships that are imbalanced will fail.
AO3:
Possible evaluation points:
· Use of evidence to support or contradict the theory.
· Assumes people make rational and calculated decisions about romantic relationships.
· Can account for individual differences in attraction as different people will perceive certain rewards and
costs differently.
· Explains maintenance better than initial attraction – as time goes on costs become more evident.
· Oversimplifies complex human romantic relationships – does not account for selfless behaviour.
· Comparison with Rusbult’s elaboration of the theory.

Question 6

Briefly outline what is meant by ‘equity’ in relation to theories of romantic relationships. [2 marks].

Answer 6

An economic model of relationships based on the idea of fairness for each partner; emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between their cost/effort and their benefit/reward

Question 7

Outline Rusbult’s model of romantic relationships. Explain one or more strength(s) of Rusbult’s model. [8 marks

Answer 7

AO1:
Possible content:
· Rusbult developed/extended SET by proposing investment model.
· Rusbult saw commitment is key factor in sustaining a relationship – commitment depends on satisfaction,
comparison with alternatives and investment.
· Satisfaction is determined by available alternatives – better alternatives equal less satisfaction.
· Investment acts as a deterrent to leaving a relationship – intrinsic investment – resources put into the relationship directly, e.g., emotion, effort etc – extrinsic investment – resources arising out of the relationship,
e.g., children, mutual friends, possessions bought together.
AO3:
Possible strengths:
· Use of evidence to support Rusbult’s model, e.g., Rhatigan and Axsom (2006) – women who had made less investment were less satisfied; Le and Agnew (2003) – showed the importance of satisfaction, alternative
and investment in commitment; Rusbult (1998) – support for the model in homosexual couples
· Rusbult’s model explains why people stay in relationships that appear to offer few rewards
· Rusbult’s model is an improvement in relation to other theories, e.g., social exchange, equity

Question 8

Describes Duck’s Model of Relationship Breakdown (AO1)

Answer 8

· A model that describes the four phases of relationship breakdown.
· intra-psychic phase
– a partner thinks about his/her dissatisfaction with the relationship, but this is not disclosed to others/partner.
· Dyadic phase
– both partners are aware of the problem
– there is confrontation, discussion.
· Social phase
– partners disclose their problems to others
– friends, family become aware of the breakdown of the relationship.
· Grave dressing phase
– each partner comes to terms with the breakdown and rationalises it by constructing a narrative of events.

Question 9

Discuss Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown. [8 marks]

Answer 9

AO1:
Possible content:
· Duck (1982) described how relationship breakdown occurs in a sequence of four stages/phases.
· Intra-psychic stage – one partner is dissatisfied, keeps it to self, ruminates.
· Dyadic stage – problem is raised openly and discussed between partners.
· Social stage – friends/family are told, time of negotiation, settling of arrangements.
· Grave dressing stage – post-relationship rationalisation of events and re-building.
Full marks can be achieved by adopted a breadth or depth approach to the number of stages covered in the answer.
AO3
Possible discussion:
· Use of evidence to support/contradict the stages * recognises that breakdown is a process rather than a
single event.
· Takes account of the social context in which breakdown of relationships occurs.
· Grave dressing enables a positive view – a time of reflection for learning and changing.
· Inadequacy of the original model – duck added a 5th stage ‘resurrection’ as a time to look towards future relationships.
· Useful for counsellors, e.g., could use cognitive therapy to focus on private thoughts in the intra-psychic stage
or suggest focus on practicalities in the social stage.
· Does not account for the initial dissatisfaction so describes rather than explains.
· Although Duck proposed a sequence, stages do not always occur in the same order, and we can revert to
previous stages dependent on communication between partners.
· Model is largely built on retrospective, self-report evidence.
· Model is founded on western cultural ideals so has limited application in other cultures.

Question 10

Discuss what psychological research has told us about virtual relationships in social media. [16 marks].

Answer 10

AO1:
Possible content:
· Self-disclosure in virtual relationships – effects of anonymity: feelings of closeness and intimacy; less
emphasis on physical characteristics; lowered inhibition, increased self-disclosure.
· Hyperpersonal model (Walther 1996) on-line persona can be heavily manipulated and controlled (selective
self-presentation can be hyper-honest or hyper-dishonest).
· Absence of gating removes factors that normally act as a barrier to interaction (e.g., Level of physical
attractiveness, physical anomalies, speech defects, being in a different age group, from a different social
background etc) (Mckenna 2002), (Rosemann and Saffir 2006).
· Reduced cues theory – negative effects of deindividuation and disinhibition.
· Virtual relationships develop quicker because intimacy occurs sooner than in real-life relationships (Bargh 2002).
· Widens range of potential social relationships.
AO3:
Possible discussion:
· Historical development of various types of social media interaction e.g., early virtual relationships lacked
visual face-to-face interaction – less rich NV communication; advanced technology allows for real life ‘live’ interaction.
· Cultural differences mediate effects of social media on relationships (Yum and Hara 2005)
· Effects of more open self-disclosure, e.g., long-term effects – relationships that begin on-line are more
durable than other relationships (McKenna and Bargh 2000).
· Mediating effect of personality – introverts/extroverts (Peters 2005).
· NVC is not absent from virtual relationships – cues are just different, e.g., acrostics/emoticons substitute for facial expression and intonation; importance of timing of responses (Walther and Tidwell 1995).
· Variable effects of different on-line contexts e.g., people disclose more on gaming sites than on dating
websites because the latter is likely to lead to face-to-face encounter.
· Social benefits, e.g., effects on loneliness - easier access to social interaction/forums – easier to seek out company than in real life.
· Negative social consequences e.g., poorer/reduced face-to-face communication skills, e.g., reading familiar NVC cues

Question 11

Outline and evaluate the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships. [8 marks]

Answer 11

AO1:
Possible content:
· Parasocial relationships focused on a celebrity make up for inadequacies/deficiencies/dissatisfaction in a
person’s life/relationships and give a sense of identity.
· Absorption – people with weaker personal identity may become totally pre-occupied/consumed with the life of the celebrity and begin to identify with them.
· Addiction – at the extreme the person seeks ever greater involvement so the parasocial relationship becomes all consuming.
· Levels of involvement are characterised by McCutcheon & Maltby using the CAS:
- entertainment social, e.g., discussion with friends about interesting celebrities
- intense-personal, e.g., private obsession/feeling of personal connection
- borderline pathological, e.g., uncontrollable/extreme behaviours such as stalking.
AO3:
Possible evaluation:
· Use of evidence to support or contradict the model
· Comparison with alternative explanations, e.g., the attachment explanation.
· Links between borderline pathological level and poor mental health, social isolation, social incompetence, other addictions.
· Mediating effects of personality traits such as impulsivity, extraversion and neuroticism, e.g., people with high level of neuroticism tend to score highly on the intense – personal level aspects of the CAS.
· Usefulness of measuring instruments such as the CAS – includes distractor items to avoid response bias.
· Allows for a distinction between pathological and non-pathological parasocial relationships.
· Evaluation of methods used in this area, e.g., self-report/correlation and how this might affect our
understanding of absorption-addiction.

Question 12

Discuss what psychological research has told us about why people develop parasocial relationships. [16 marks]

Answer 12

AO1:
Possible content:
· At a superficial level such relationships provide a source of entertainment (entertainment social – McCutcheon 2002).
· At more extreme levels, such relationships are explained as due to absorption-addiction or attachment problems.
· Absorption-addiction: such relationships are due to personal inadequacies (e.g weak personal identity, poor real-life relationships, desire to escape real life). This leads to desire for complete psychological involvement in the celebrity’s life and mistaken belief/delusion that the attention/feeling is reciprocated.
· Attachment explanation: insecure-resistant types feel need for fulfilment through relationships that do not involve chance of rejection.
AO3:
Possible discussion:
· Use of evidence to support contradict the explanation, e.g., McCutcheon (2006) insecure types had no increased likelihood of parasocial relationships; Meloy (1998) links between stalking and social incompetence.
· Basis of attachment explanation in Bowlby’s attachment theory – issues with evidence
· Links between absorption-addiction model and the three levels.
· Links between personality type and level of parasocial relationships: entertainment social linked to
extraversion; McCutcheon (2014) links with impulsivity and sensation-seeking – traits linked to other addictive behaviours.
· Absorption-addiction model is more descriptive than explanatory.
· Tendency is culturally universal – may be a universal need.
· Discussion of how methodology of specific studies might limit what studies can tell us, e.g., correlations/self- report