1
Q
Outline sexual selection
A
Darwin 1871
- evolutionary explanation of partner preference
-selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction are passed onto offspring and trait with become exaggerated over generations
- through process of heredity
2
Q
Outline examples of sexual selection
A
aggression: (in males) is adaptive because it provides an advantage for males over competitors for reproductive rights
fertility: (in woman) narrow waist and large hips
3
Q
Define Anisogamy
A
- the differences between male and female gametes
For example : the differing size of gametes and energy invested in their production whether they are static or mobile , and intervals in which they are produced
men: small gamete , highly mobile , created continuously in vast numbers from puberty and don’t need energy to be produced
female: large gamete , highly immobile , provided at intervals for limited number of fertile years and require significant investment of energy
4
Q
Outline Inter-sexual selection
A
- selection between sexes
-strategies that each sex uses to attract the other - “quality over quantity” approach and is favoured by females as they invest more energy into the development of the ova : produced at limited intervals across their lives
- Females will be more “choosy” about who they decide to mate with due to limited reproductive resources : experience more post-coital responsibility compared to males
evolutionary standpoint: enables the high quality of her offspring
5
Q
Outline an example of inter-sexual selection
A
Fisher’s sexy son hypothesis- suggests that through a female choosing to mate with an attractive male , her son will also grow to be attractive “Sexy”
: thus son more likely to have evolutionary advantage of attracting females
- ensures females genes are passed through several generations : genes remain in gene pool
6
Q
Outline Intra-sexual selection
A
- selection within sexes : competition between males to mate w females
-strategies between males to be the one that is selected
-“quantity over quality” favoured by males : produce sperm continuously throughout their lifetime with little energy investment and limited post-coital
-leads to dimorphism : physical difference between male and female sexes
According to Anisogamy, the male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate w/ many fertile females = behavioural consequence of having a preference for symbols of youth/fertility.
7
Q
Outline examples of intra-sexual selection
A
males behaving aggressively and being
protective of their female (reducing the likelihood that she will be impregnated by another competing male)
being larger (and so more sexually desirable to women), as well as possessing certain facial and physical characteristics
(e.g. strong jawlines and broad shoulders).
8
Q
eval points for evolutionary explanation
A
LIMITATIONS
cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian woman
-overlooks influence of social and cultural factors on partner preference
STRENGTHs
evidence supporting that females are more selective when it comes to potential mates
cp: sexual statergies theory : both men and woman are choosy
9
Q
Evaluate limitation of the evolutionary explanation to partner preferences
( hetereonormativity)
A
cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian woman :
- mainly bc : homosexual relationships are not assessing genetic fitness (otherfactors)
-Lawson et al looked at “personal ads” placed by hetero and homo men and woman & found preferences in in homo men and women differ from hetereo (men emphasised attractiveness and women : resources)
- cant generalise : heteronormativity bias
10
Q
Evaluate limitation of the evolutionary explanation to partner preferences
( social and cultural )
A
overlooks the influence of social and cultural factors on partner preference
-partner preferences have dramatically been influenced/adjusted by rapid changing social norms (century)
-these develop faster than evolutionary timescale implies : come ab due to cultural factors
- womans greater role in workplace means they are no longer dependant on men to provide : argued that this Social change has had lead to change in womans preferences for men (not resource orientated)
-combination of cultural and evolutionary (interactonist) - can be limited etc if does not account for both
11
Q
Evaluate strength of evolutionary explanation for partner preference
(females “choosy”)
A
evidence supporting that females are more selective when it comes to potential mates:
- due to greater energy and genetic input into pregnancy and care for child
-Clark and Hatfield 1989 : found through a college experiment : 75% of males compared to 0% of females were willing to sleep with stranger when approached and complimented - supports the idea : men have an evolutionary predisposition to to want to impregnante as many woman as possible: as high rate of sperm prod and little energy
(anisogamy) also supports dff n male selection strategies i.e inter & intra
CP : reductionist : sexual statergies theory argues both men and woman are choosy : evolutionary pressure influences are much more complex taking into account context of reproductive behaviour
12
Q
Outline the filter theory for a factor in affecting attraction in a romantic relationship
A
kerckhoff and davis 1962
- we are initially exposed to a “field of availables”
-in order to form relationships field must be narrowed to “field of desirables” depending on 3 filters:
- social democracy
- similarity in attitudes
- complementarity
-importance of each filter depends on whether relationship is LT or ST
13
Q
Outline the social democracy filter
A
- FIRST filter of filter theory
- factors which make potential partners attractive to us
-this is the idea of similarity in terms of religion , sexuality , ethnicity , social class , educational attainment and proximity - two people sharing similar social demographic features are more likely to find each other attractive
- Proximity is key : provides accessibility which makes communication and relationship formation between partners easier : regular access to one another
- close proximity may “trump” dissimilarities in other social demographic features
- homogamy: more likely to form relationship w someone who is socially and culturally similar
14
Q
Outline the similarity in attitudes filter
A
- SECOND filter in filter theory
- particularly important in short term relationship i.e less than 18 months
- basic similarities in terms of core beliefs about significant topics e.g : love , sex , religion
- this encourages greater and deeper communication : promoting self disclosure
-large dissimilarities in attitudes : cause relationship to end : due to incompatibility in LT (Bryne 1997)
15
Q
Outline complementarity in attitudes filter
A
- THIRD level of filter
- K&D found that this need was important in LT relationships
- relationship more likely to be successful when two partners complement each-others traits : “completing” each other making a “whole” : adding depth to the relationship : can flourish
-opposites attract : E.G someone who likes to laugh having a partner who is funny and likes to make others laugh - one likes to nurture , partner likes to be nurtured
16
Q
Eval points of filter theory
A
STRENGTHS :
- research evidence from Winch 1958
CP: temporal validity : social change :still applicable today?
LIMITATIONS:
- reductionist : abusive relationship
-suffers from cultural bias
- montoya - meta analysis - may percieve to be more similar
17
Q
Evaluate a strength of the filter theory as a factor for affecting attraction
A
research evidence initial development of relationships
- Winch 1958 conducted a research in which he found that similarities in beliefs and attitudes was cited as one of the main attractive features in an ideal partner of the respondents
- in line with the predictions of the matching hypothesis made by filter theory : complementary and narrowing into field of desirables
- increase validity : real life example : high ecol validity : needed in LT relationships
CP: may lack temporal validity : research of 1958 : many social changes since that time : e.g social media etc may have a greater influence
18
Q
Evaluate limitation of the filter theory (reductionist)
A
Reductionist
- simplifies complex phenomena of romantic relationships into a 3 step filter theory : ignores
- limits the range of real life romantic explanations that it can explain
- e.g : cannot explain why many people stay in long term relationships despite lack of complementary explained by theory (AS needed FACTOR IN LTR)
- suggests holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining complexity of relationship maintenance
19
Q
Evaluate a limitation of filter theory (cultural bias)
A
suffers from cultural bias
- most research taken from individualist cultures : more likely to value free choice in relationship : desirability : individual preference
- can apply filter theory to these cultures without influence from others
-cannot apply to collectivist cultures: marriage more likely to be arranged : partners cannot apply individualist filters on who their future partner will be
- filter theory suffers from cultural bias : assuming findings from west apply to other cultures (cultural relativism) reducing universality
20
Q
Evaluate a strength of the filter theory
A
actual similarity matters less in a relationship than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar
- e.g meta analysis of 313 studies - Montoya et al 2008 : actual similarity only affected attraction in very ST lab based interactions
- in real world , **perceived ** similarity was a greater predicator of of attraction
-therefore : can interpret : partners may perceive greater similarity as they become more attracted to one another
-perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction not a cause : not predicted by the filter model
21
Q
Define self disclosure
A
-revealing personal information about yourself
-romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops
-self disclosure about ones deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately
22
Q
Outline the social penetration theory (self-disclosure)
A
Altman and Taylor proposed this theory
- process of
self-disclosure allows one person to penetrate deeper into the life of their partner : revealing your deepest thoughts and secrets - stage of relationship is serious and characterised by trust and increases intimacy
-important to be selective about what one chooses to disclose
- only likely to occur if the exchange of such information is reciprocal
23
Q
Outline the breath and depth of self-disclosure
A
2 elements of self disclosure
Onion anaology
- as relationship progresses, more layers of the onion is removed
-info disclosed upon first is superficial and “on the surface” and “low risk”
- kind of information we would disclose to strangers, colleagues etc.
-Revealing intimate details about oneself at the beginning of a relationship may be detrimental effects
e.g. revealing ‘too much information’. TMI!
-As relationship progresses : self disclosure becomes deeper : progressively removing + layers revealing our true selves
- eventually reveal intimate high risk info : secrets
24
Q
Outline importance of reciprocity in self disclosure
A
when revealing more layers:disclosing something that reveals your true self
-partner must respond in a way that is rewarding e.g empathy and also their own intimate thoughts etc
balance of self disclosure in a relationship : successful relationship : deeper relationship
25
EVAL POINTS FOR SELF DISCLOSURE
STRENGTHS
-research support : Sprecher and strong correlation of satisfation and self disclosure for both partners
CP : correlational study
-real world applications
LIMITATIONS
-cultural differences :
26
strength of self disclosure (research support)
**Sprecher and Hendrick**
-self disclosure derived from penetration theory
- studies hetereosexual relationships : strong positive correlation between levels of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners
-in a later study : spretcher et al found that : relationships closer and more satisfying when partners take turn to self disclose (reciprocated)
**Counterpoint**: correlational study: assumed that greater self disclosure leads to more satisfaction : this is not causational
Other factors, such as the amount of time partners spend together, could influence both self-disclosure and satisfaction independently. (third variable)
27
strength of self disclosure (real world applications)
-research into self disclosure Can help those who want to improve communication within their relationship
- couples with high levels of intimacy and commitment within their relationships, 57% reported the use of self-disclosure as a way to maintain it
- use of therapies which focus on increasing the depth and breadth of self-disclosure forcouples who struggle with intimacy (iincreases trust)
-these predictions have been made by the SPT : increasing validity
28
limitaition of self disclosure (research support)
may not be universally applicable due to cultural differences.
Tang et al. (2013)
found that romantic partners in China disclosed less sexual thoughts and feelings compared to those in the USA, yet both cultures reported high levels of relationship satisfaction.
This suggests that self-disclosure is not a necessity for successful relationships in all cultures, which challenges the cultural bias inherent in Social Penetration Theory.
29
Outline the factors affecting attraction in a romantic relationship
- self disclosure
-physical attractiveness
-filter theory
30
What are the Theories of romantic relationships?
-SET
-Equity theory
-Rusbult's model
-Ducks phase model
-
31
Definition of physical attraction
How appealing we find a person's face:
- We seek to form a relationship with the most attractive person available.
32
Explain the Importance of Physical attractiveness
-Shackleford and Larsen
Symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive as they signal genetic fitness.
Neotenous features trigger a caring instinct = valuable resource for females that want to reproduce.
- McNulty = initial attractiveness that brought partners together will be an important factor in marriage even years later.
33
Definition of the Halo effect
The tendency to have preconceived ideas about the personality traits people have based on physical attractiveness: (physical attractiveness stereotype)
- One distinguishing feature tend to have a disproportionate influence our judgement on a person's other attributes.
Dion: 'what is beautiful is good'
= Physically attractive ppl are consistently rated as kind, successful and sociable compared to unattractive ppl.
= Belief that attractive ppl have these characteristics = they become more attractive, so we treat them better.
34
Definition of the matching hypothesis
States that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other:
- We desire the most attractive partner for evolutionary, social, cultural and psychological reasons BUT we must balance against this to avoid being rejected.
- We must make a realistic judgement of our own value to a potential partner.
35
Evidence for the. matching hypothesis
**Ellen Berscheid**
-replicated Walster's study: however individuals were able to select their partners from people of varing levels of attractiveness
- found : participants tended to choose partners who matched them in terms of physical attractiveness
- to avoid rejection
36
eval points for physical attractiveness
**STRENGTHS**
-research support for halo effect
-support for the matching hypothesis
- CP: cannot generalise : Taylor : studied activity logs of famous dating websites : found : online daters sought meeting w those more PA to them
**LIMITATIONS**
-Individual differences as some don't attach importance to PA.
37
Strength of PA as an a factor affecting attraction in a romantic relationship (research support for halo effect)
+ Research support for the halo effect:
= Palmer and Peterson found that PA people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent.
- Halo effect was so powerful, it even persisted when participants knew the 'competent' party had no expertise.
- Dangerous implications for the political process : dangers for democracy : suitable for office only due to attractiveness
38
Strength of PA as an a factor affecting attraction in a romantic relationship (support for the matching hypothesis)
Research support for the matching hypothesis:
= Feingold did a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of PA in romantic partners.
- Supports MH as it uses real partners = realistic. : generalisable
**CP** : Taylor et al studied activity logs of famous online dating apps and found online daters sought to meet up w/ those who are more PA
39
Limitation of PA as an a factor affecting attraction in a romantic relationship (research support for halo effect)
- Individual differences as some don't attach importance to PA.
= Towhey asked participants to rate ppl based on photos and complete the MACHO scale. (measured sexist attitudes and behaviours)
- Found that a higher MACHO score = more influenced by PA.
- Proves the effects of PA depend on other factors too.
challenges the notion that it is a significant consideration in relationship formation for all potential partners.
40
Definition of the Social exchange theory
**Thibault Kelley**
Assumes romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs:
- A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship.
-minimax principle
41
Explain the role of Rewards, Costs and Profits in the Social exchange theory
Behaviour in relationships reflects economic assumptions of exchange:
- Minimax principle = we try to minimise our losses and maximise gains.
- We judge our satisfaction w/ a relationship based on the profit it yields = rewards - costs
- The significance of rewards/costs are subjective.
- The value of rewards/costs change over the course of the relationship = less or more valuable
- Rewards = companionship, sex, emotional support
- Costs = time, stress, energy, compromise.
42
State 2 ways we measure the Profit in a relationship
Comparison level
Comparison level for Alternatives
43
Describe the Comparison level
The amount of reward we believe we deserve to get:
- High CL = relationship is worth pursuing
- Influenced by our experiences from previous relationships = creates expectations.
- Influenced by social norms that determine a reasonable level of reward within cultures = in books, movies, tv
- Over time, we get in more relationships + social norms = our CL changes based on experience : acquire more data to set it by
- Low-self esteem = low CL and satisfied with a small profit.
44
Describe the Comparison level for Alternatives
We will stay in our current relationship if we believe it's more rewarding than any alternative relationships:
- If we believe we could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship, we will leave.
-there are always alternatives around (Duck)
- We adopt will depending on the state of our current relationship = if in a satisfying relationship, we don't notice the alternatives available.
-however alternatives may become more attractive : plenty of fish in the sea
45
State the 4 stages of relationship development
- Sampling
- Bargaining
- Commitment
- Institutionalisation
46
Definition of the First stage of relationship development: Sampling
We explore the rewards and cost of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships/by observing others.
47
Definition of the Second stage of relationship development: Bargaining
Marks the beginning of a relationship:
- When a romantic partner starts exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable.
48
Definition of the Third stage of relationship development: Commitment
As time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable:
- The relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen.
49
Definition of the Fourth stage of relationship development: Institutionalisation
The partners are settled down as the norms of the rewards/costs in the relationship are established.
50
eval points for SET
**STRENGTHS**
research support : Kurdeck interviewed homo and hetereosexual couples
**LIMITATIONS**
- SET argues dissatisfaction begins when we suspect costs to outweigh rewards/find alternatives more attractive BUT dissatisfaction comes first.
fails to distinguish between 2 types of relationships
-ignores importance of equity
51
Limitation for SET (Argyle)
-**direction of cause and effect is invalid**
SET argues dissatisfaction begins when we suspect costs to outweigh rewards/find alternatives more attractive BUT dissatisfaction comes first.
- Argyle points out we don't measure rewards/costs or constantly consider alternatives TILL we're dissatisfied.
(commited partners dont notice alternatives)
= Miller found that ppl rated in a committed rs spent less time looking at pics of attractive ppl.
52
Limitation for SET (Clark and Millls)
- SET fails to distinguish between 2 types of relationships:
- Clark & Mills = Exchange relationships (between colleagues) involve SET but Communal relationships (between romantic partners) give and receive w/o keeping score.
- SET claims reciprocity of rewards/costs in relationships are monitored = if true for communal rs, commitment of partners would be questions
= Based on faulty assumptions + can't account for romantic rs.
53
Strength for SET (research support)
**Kurdeck** : interviewed
- homo and hetereosexual couples
- commited partners : perceived they had the most rewards and fewest costs
-viewed alternatives as unattractive
E- study confirms : main SET concepts are predicting commitment are independent of each other ( so have an effect individually)
- confirms the predictions for SET supporting the validity of the theory in homosexual couples as well as hetereo
54
Limitation of set (equity)
- The overemphasis of SET on the role of comparison levels ignores the importance of equity
-the balance of rewards and costs is dependant on how the partner perceives the
55
Definition of the Equity theory
States that the distribution of rewards and costs in a relationship must be fair for a satisfying relationship.
56
Describe the Role of Equity in relationships
The level of **profits** between partners must be the same:
- Lack of equity means one partner over-benefits and the other under-benefits = leads to dissatisfaction and unhappiness.
- Under-benefitted partner = feels greatest dissatisfaction in the form of anger, resentment and humiliation.
- Over-benefitted partner = feels guilt, discomfort and shame.
57
Describe the difference between Equity and Equality
It's not amount rewards and costs that matters, but their ratio to each other: (equity)
- If one partner puts a lot into the relationship, they should get a lot out of it = ensures fairness.
- A precise equal distribution may be unfair = compensations may be offered in other areas.
- Satisfying may need negotiation to ensure equity + distribute rewards equally between partners.
58
Consequences of inequity
Problems occur when a partner puts too much into a relationship, but gets little from it:
- The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction.
- A change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on = increases dissatisfaction
E.g in the beginning, it may feel normal to contribute more than you receive but this may seem less satisfying later on.
59
Explain how Inequity is dealt with
- The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they'll work to restore equity.
- They'll revise their perceptions of rewards and costs, so it feels more equitable to them even if nothing changes = costs may be accepted as the norm (abuse, untidiness)
60
EVAL POINTS OF EQUITY THEORY
**STRENGTHS**
+ Research evidence confirms the equity theory is more valid than SET
CP: research found that relationships that ended and those that continued had no difference in equity
**LIMITATIONS**
- ignores cultural differences
61
strength of equity theory (Utne)
Research evidence confirms the equity theory is more valid than SET:
- Utne et al surveyed 118 married couples dating for more than 2 years before marriage, to measure equity =
- found equitable relationships led to more satisfaction.
- valued equity as a key component to the success of their relationship
- high ecological validity : can explain the quality and satisfaction associated with real-life couples (not theoretical)
## Footnote
-**CP**: research found that relationships that ended and those that continued had no difference in equity : goes against the prediction of the equity theory
62
limitation of equity theory (culture)
- Ignores cultural differences as it assumes equity is a global feature of romantic relationships:
- **Aumer-ryan** et al found a cultural diff in the link between equity & satisfaction= individualists value equity but collectivists prefer overbenefitting.
- this was true of both men and woman : cannot be explained by gender differences
= Equity isn't a universal need for relationships.
- can only be applied to some cultures
63
limitation of equity theory (culture)
- Individual differences as not all partners are concerned about achieving equity:
- desires of the outcome of a relationship is subjective for everyone
-
- Huseman et al suggests some are less sensitive to equity than others = **benevolents** are ready to contribute more to the relationship and the **entitleds** accept it without guilt.
= This shows equity isn't a global feature of all relationships.
## Footnote
benevolents
entitleds
64
Outline ****Rubult's investment model****
- an extension of social exchange theory
commitment and investment are both more important than satisfaction in determining the likelihood of a successful
relationship.
If there's high satisfaction, less attractive alternatives and an increasing investment size = committed relationship.
3 factors influencing the level of commitment in a relationship:
- Satisfaction levels
- Comparison with alternatives
- Investment size
65
Describe of the role of Satisfaction in a successful relationship
| ****Rubult's investment model****
The extent to which romantic partners feel the rewards of the relationship exceeds the costs:
- A relationship is satisfying if it's seen as profitable if rewards>costs + if there are no profitable alternatives.
66
Describe of the role of Comparison with alternatives in a successful relationship
| ****Rubult's investment model****
A judgement partner's make about whether a relationship w/ a diff partner would bring more rewards and fewer costs:
- If a partner feels their profits are decreasing and costs increasing, they'll look for alt relationships/consider having no relationship at all.
E.g. discovering that their partner is untidy, abuse or is cheating on them
67
Describe of the role of Investment size in a successful relationship
The resources associated w/ a relationship and the loss of these resources after the rs ends:
- Explains why couples w/ small profits remain together as they've made large investments in the relationship.
- more likely to stay together if the size of the investments are increasing
2 types of investment:
- Intrinsic investment
- Extrinsic investment
## Footnote
main psychological factor that causes people to stay in relationships
commitment > satisfaction
68
Instrinsic investment
Any resources we put directly into the relationship:
- Money, time, energy, emotion, self-disclosures
69
Definition of Extrinsic investment
Any resources that didn't previously feature in the relationship, but are now closely associated w/ it:
- Children, house, shared car, shared memories
70
Describe Relationship Maintenance Mechanisms
- Committed partners don't engage in tit-for-tat retaliation = act to promote the rs instead.
- Willingness to sacrifice = putting your partner's needs first and forgiving them for transgressions.
- Positive illusions and ridiculing alternatives = unrealistically positive about their partners, negative about tempting alternatives and other people's rs.
## Footnote
made an investment they dont want to go to waste
71
EVAL POINTS for Rusbults investment model
**STRENGTHS**
- explains why people remain in abusive relationships
- good methodology used
- research support
**LIMITATIONS**
- oversimplifies concept of investment
72
strength of Rusbults investmenet model (abuse)
- can explain why peopl remain in relationships w/ intimate partner violence
-****Rusbult & Martz**** found that ur more likely to return to an abusive partner if u made a great investment + had few attractive alternatives
- were disatisfied w their relationship however still commited to their s/o
-shows that satisfaction on its own cannot explain why people stay in romantic relationships
73
limitation of Rusbults investment model
- Oversimplifies investment as just resources put into an rs:
sees the motivation to continue with a relationship according to the investments, time and energy which an individual has contributed
- ***Goodfried & Agnew*** found that early rs input little investment but long-term rs invest by making future plans = motivated to commit to each other to make their plans work out.
-
= Limited explanation as it fails to recognise the complexity of investment : simplistic explanation
74
strength of Rusbults investmeent model (method)
**investment model is supported by studies using self reporting methods**
- e.g questionarres
- these methods usually criticsed as lacking objectivity and creating qualitative data
- this is not the case with Rusbult’s model.
-
- his model focuses on the individuals PERCEPTION of their investments as opposed to quantitative value
- high ecological validity : when considering that an individual’s
perception of their investments is often different to their partner’s perception in the instance of
relationship breakdown
has used the correct methodology
to accurately reflect the subjective nature of the model’s features
75
strength of rusbults model (research support)
+ Research support found that satisfaction, Calt and investment size predict commitment in relationships.
+
- Le & Agnew did a meta-analysis of 52 countries w/ het and homo couples = more commitment led to a more stable rs.
= Increased validity of the theory as universally important.
76
Outline Ducks Phase model
Model of relationship break down
-Argued: ending of a relationship is not a one off event but a process that takes time and goes through 4 distinct phases
When a partner feel dissatisfied and reaches a threshold, their perception of the relationship changes.
- if they cross the threshold they move onto the next stage ( rather than halting the process of breakdown)
- ****Intra-psychic**** = cognitive processes within the individual
- ****Dyadic phase**** = interpersonal processes between partners
- ****Social phase**** = wider processes involving their social networks
- ****Grave-dressing phase**** = aftermath
77
Ducks phase model: intra psychic stage
The dissatisfied partner broods on the reasons for their dissatisfaction privately or with a trusted friend:
- They weigh up pros and cons of the relationship + evaluate them against the alternative.
- They begin to make plans for the future.
- Usually dissatisfied due to their partner's shortcomings.
78
Ducks phase model: Dyadic phase
When they can't avoid talking about their relationship and confront each other by discussing and airing out their dissatisfactions:
- Characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about equity, resentment over imbalanced roles and rethinking the commitment that kept them together.
- Either leads to a determination to continue breaking up or a renewed desire to repair it.
79
Ducks phase model: Social phase
The break-up is made public and partners will seek support/try to form pacts as this is the point of no return:
- Mutual friends are expected to choose a side + gossip is traded.
- Friends will either provide reinforcement and reassurance or they may be judgemental + place blame on partners.
- Friends may try to hasten the end by providing secret info or try to help repair the relationship.
80
Ducks phase model: Grave-dressing phase
A favourable story about the breakdown is shared to the public to save face and maintain a positive reputation at the expense of the other partner, showing them in a bad light:
- may. Create a personal story to live with = tidies memories of the rs + reinterprets positive characteristics of their ex in a negative way.
or may accept that they j werent compatible
81
EVAL POINTS of Ducks phase
****STRENTHS****
- suggests ways that relationship breakdown can be reversed
**CP** : culture bound
****LIMITATIONS****
- may be an incomplete model
82
strength of Ducks phase model (reversed)
-** suggests ways that relationship breakdown can be reversed**
- = allows us to recognise repair strategies for relationship counselling.- = allows us to recognise repair strategies for relationship counselling.
- E.g In the intra-psychic phase, focus brooding on the positive aspects of their partner : improving communication skills is beneficial in the dyadic phase
- can provide supporting instincts
## Footnote
**cp** model may be culture bound to individualist cultures : individualist relationships are usually voluntarily and usuallly come to an end however collectivist reelationships are less easier to end and usually involve the eextended family : not applicable to all cultures
83
limitation of ducks phase model
- Incomplete model = added a 5th resurrection phase:
- Ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships using experiences gained from the previous one.
- Rollie & Duck emphasised how the progression of stages isn't inevitable + u can go back.
= This change overcomes the weaknesses in the model that was limited by ignoring the complexity of break-ups and its dynamic nature
84
limitation of Ducks phase model ( retrospective)
- Methodological issues as it uses retrospective research = may not recall details accurately which decreases reliability.
- participants in research research studied generally report their experiences some time after the rs has ended
- Early stages of the breakdown may be distorted, so it's ignored by researchers.
-
= Incomplete description of how rs end as Duck's model is based on research that ignores the early phases.
## Footnote
retrospective : recalling of past events
85
Definition of CMC and FTF
CMC = computer mediated communication
FTF = face to face communication
86
Outline virtual relationships in social media
self disclosure is diffterent in FtF and virtual relationships : in virtual they are maintained by social networking sites
***reduced cues theory***
(sproull and kiesler)
- virtual relationships are less effective due to lack of nonverbal cues (e.g physical appearance & emotional response) in FtF rs we rely on these cues
-
- lack of cues ab emeotional state leads to *de-individuation*
- people then feel free from constrains of social norms : *disinhibition* leading to blunt and even aggrewssive communication and a reluctance to SD
***Hyperpersonal model **
- walter
- - They have more control over what to disclose + the cues they send = easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy by self-presenting positively. : relationship formed quicker
-
- sender has control: can be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest
- recievers feedback may rienforce senders selective self presentation
- anonimity can allow individuals to disclose more ab themselves "strangers on a train" Bargh
87
Outline the effects of absence of gating in VR
When gates are absent in CMC, allowing virtual relationships to form and develop to the point of deeper self-disclosure:
- The absence of gates refocus attention on self-disclosure away from distracting, superficial features.
- can create untrue identities
## Footnote
**gates** : (e.g facial disfigureements) may be obstacles to a FtF RS
88
EVAL points for VR in social media
STRENGTHS
- research support : whittney and johnson
LIMITATIONS
- theories of SD and absence of gating may lack ecological validity
-lack of support for reduced cues theory
89
strength of VR in sociial media
| research support
***whittney and johnson***
found : Online communications, due to
the apparent lack of nonverbal cues, often feature ‘direct’ questions, as opposed to the small-talky
which features in face-to-face relationships
- more likely to self disclosure : can be selective about info ab ourselves that we expose e.g hyperdishonest etc
- **the central principle of selective self-presentation and the importance on anonymity are
demonstrated in such studies. **
90
limitation of VR in social media
***theories of SD and absence of gating may lack ecological validity***
The theories of self-disclosure and absence of gating in virtual relationships may not be able to expain all the course of modern-age relationships :
mixture of virtual and face-to-face elements, as suggested by Walther (2011)
Individuals often
feel the pressure to portray themselves in the same way as they have online as in real-life, and so this
interaction may offset the effects of fewer gates and self-disclosure in virtual relationships.
91
limitation of VR in social media
***lack of support for reduced cues theory***
(Walther and Tidwell)
- suggested that online cues are not absent on SM but rather different from FtF e.g taking time to reply to a message more intimate than imeddiate reply
- acronyms e.g LOL emojis and emoticons are effective substitudes for Ftf non verbal cues such as facial expressions
This refutes the central assumption of the reduces cues theory that online communication relationships may suffer due to being impersonal and featuring few cues, especially considering that an increasing number of
successful modern relationships begin online.
psychology y2
flashcards
Decks in class (4)
# Cards
