Topics covering attraction, relationship breakdown, parasocial relationships and more. includes detailed evaluation and ao3 details.

1. Relationships – Topic 5
(psychology)

2. Sexual selection
 Differences in mate selection are due to biological
differences between genders.
◦ Anisogamy – female sex cells require more energy to
produce, aren’t produced as frequently and only produced
in a certain time frame.
Male sex cells are produced in large quantities, relatively
easy to produce with very little effort.
◦ This means that there is no shortage of fertile males, women
are a resource.
Research support – Buss – surveyed 10000 adults in 33
countries. He asked questions related to attributes the
evolutionary theory would predict as attractive.
◦ Females placed emphasis on resource related
characteristics e.g. financial prospects.
◦ Males valued reproductive capacity e.g. youth, good looks.

3. Inter-sexual selection
 Preferred strategy of females – quality over quantity.
 Trivers – women make greater investments of time, commitment and
resources before, during and after a child is born.
 This means that she has more to lose if she has picked a bad mate.
Therefore, it is in her interest to be choosey about who she mates with.
 A females best strategy is to pick a genetically fit male who is able and is
willing to provide resources.
 Runway process – women choose males on a particular characteristic
such as height, creating offspring who are tall. This also will produce
daughters who will pick tall mates.
 Sexy sons hypothesis – tall gene is passed on through generations,
making males more attractive to potential mates.
Research support – Clarke & Hatfield – male and female university
students went out on campus asking questions such as ‘I find you very
attractive, would you go to bed with me tonight?’
◦ 100% of females said no.
◦ 75% of males said yes

4. Intra-sexual selection
 The preferred strategy of the male – quantity.
 Competition between other males for the opportunity
to mate. The winner of the competition is able to pass
his successful genes down.
 Psychological consequence - males may benefit from
having personality types such as aggression and one
track mind as it allows them to fight of competition and
protect their mates.
 Anisogamy dictates that males should want to mate
with as many women as possible due to the ease of
producing sperm and the lack of responsibility males
have after mating.
 Behavioural consequence – males prefer women with
signs of fertility e.g. youth and body shapes.
Supporting evidence – Singh – waist-to-hip ratio.
Males are more attracted to women with an hourglass
figure where the hip to waist ratio is 0.7.

5. Evaluating the evolutionary
theory
 Ignores social and cultural influences
◦ Bereczkei – more women in the workplace has meant that females
preferences for a mate don’t revolve around the need for resources.
◦ Chang – mate preferences changed in china corresponding with major
social changes.
 Is sexual selection theory sexist? It assumes that all males are
likely to abandon their children after mating.
 Does the theory explain anything about same sex couples?
 David & Dunbar - Lonely hearts advertisement, males offered
resource based attributes and searched for attractiveness and
youth, women searched for resources and offered physical
attractiveness.
 Application/issues - Levinger - For example, research suggests
that women value resources more in cultures where their status
and educational opportunities are limited. (NATURE VS
NERTURE)
 The theory is too deterministic, assuming that all males search
for attractiveness and all women look for resources.

6. Self Disclosure
 Revealing personal information about yourself.
Romantic partners reveal more about their true
selves as the relationship develops.
 Social penetration theory – Altman & Taylor –
the gradual process of revealing your inner-self to
someone. It involves the reciprocal exchange of
information between intimate partners. Revealing
information creates trust and greater
understanding of each other.
Research support – Sprecher & Hendrick – in
heterosexual dating couples, a strong correlation
was found between levels and perception of
disclosure and both satisfaction and intimacy.

7. Breadth and Depth & Reciprocity
 As breadth and depth increase, romantic partners become
more committed to each other.
 At the beginning of the relationship we disclose superficial
information that we hope the other person will like.
 We slowly divulge more information about ourselves and
discover more topics that were off limits. Eventually we are
ready to reveal ‘high risk’ information such as memories
and painful experiences.
Reciprocity of self disclosure - Reis & Shaver – for a
relationship to develop there needs to be a reciprocal element
to disclosure. We hope our partner responds to disclosure with
understanding, empathy and their own intimate thoughts.
This increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the
relationship.
Laurenceau – daily diary entries found that disclosure and the
perception of disclosure were linked to higher levels of
intimacy in long term couples. Less intimate couples were
those who disclosed less often.

8. Evaluation of Disclosure
 Real life applications – couples may use disclosure to
improve their communication. Romantic partners can
skilfully use disclosure to increase intimacy. Hass &
Stafford – 57% of gay men and women said that open
and honest disclosure was their main way of
deepening commitment.
 Cultural differences – Tang – couples in the US
disclosed more regarding sexual feelings, fantasies
and experiences in comparison to couples in China.
However, neither experienced more satisfaction than
the other.
 Self disclosure and satisfaction – couples often use
disclosure as a way of preventing breakups.
Conversations are often deep and involve intimate
information yet this may not be enough to save the
relationship. It may even contribute to the breakup.
 Correlations vs causations

9. Factors affecting attraction : physical
attractiveness
 Physical attractiveness is important in forming
relationships. Shackleford & Larsen found that people
with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
This is because it may be a signal of genetic fitness.
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous
features such as widely separated eyes, delicate chin
and a small nose, as these trigger a caring reflex in
males.
 The halo effect – attractiveness may also be a matter of
stereotypical personality traits attractive people must
have.
 Dion – attractive people are viewed as kind, strong,
sociable and successful compared to unattractive
people. These stereotypes make attractive people more

10.  Matching hypothesis – we all desire physical
attractiveness, however, our common sense
tells us that we cant all form relationships with
the most attractive people.
 People chose romantic partners who are
roughly of similar physical attractiveness. To
do this we make a judgment about our own
value to a partner.
 Our choice of partner becomes a compromise,
to avoid rejection.

11. Evaluating physical attractiveness
 Research support for the halo effect
Palmer & Peterson – physically attractive people were rated as more
politically savvy, despite participants having no expertise in politics.
◦ real life application – people tend to vote for politicians who are more
attractive due to the halo effect.
Kim – Korean American students judged attractive individuals as more
trustworthy, mature and friendly.
 Research support for the matching hypothesis –
Feingold – meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in
ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.
◦ Used actual romantic partners which increases the validity.
Taylor – online dating, people chose partners who are more attractive than
themselves.
 Individual differences
Towhey – people who scored highly on the MACHO scale (measure of
sexism) were more influenced by physical attractiveness.
 Real life application – online dating; attractiveness has become the
most important factor in choosing a partner online.

12. Filter Theory
 Kerckhoff & Davis – in terms of partner choice we all have
a field of available partners, the entire set of potential
partners have to be put through filters to narrow down our
range.
 Social demography (1st filter) – influences the chance of
meeting your partner in the first place. They include
proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group,
religion etc. Homogamy – likely to form a relationship with
someone who is socially or culturally similar.
 Similarities in attitudes (2nd filter) – sharing important
beliefs and values. There is a need for partners to agree on
basic values and things that matter to them in the beginning
of a relationship as it promotes self disclosure. Law of
attraction – similarity is the fundamental of attraction.
 Complimentary (3rd level) – two partners compliment each
other when they have characteristics the other lacks. This
was important in long term couples. It is attractive because it
gives the partners the feeling that they form a whole.

13. Evaluating filter theory
 Supporting research evidence
Filter theory assumes that key factors in a relationship change over time,
which is agreeable. Therefore, the theory has face validity.
Winch – found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and
attitudes between partners are typical at the earliest stages of a relationship.
 Failure to replicate
Levinger – studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the
basis of filter theory. This is due to social changes which change the definition
of what depth in a relationship means e.g. 18 months is the length of a LT
relationship, assuming that the couples are more committed and their
relationships are deeper.
 Direction of cause and effect
Anderson – in a longitudinal study that cohabiting couples became more
similar in their emotional responses over time.
Davis and Rusbult – attitude alignment – romantic partners over time bring
their attitudes into line with each other.
 Lack of temporal validity – online relationships have reduced the
importance of some social demographic.
 Gruber-Baldini – carried out a longitudinal study of married couples, they
found that the similarities between spouses in tern of intellectual abilities
and attitudinal flexibility increased over a 14 year period.

14. Social Exchange Theory – Thibault &
Kelley
 Rewards, costs and profits
Behaviour in a relationship reflects the economic assumptions of
exchange. We try to minimise losses and maximise gains. We judge
our relationships in terms of the profit it yields. Our perceived rewards
are subjective meaning that our partners may not share the same costs
and benefits. Likewise, our rewards change over time, what is seen as
a reward or a cost may become less so later on.
Blau – relationships are costly, even to the extent where you aren't able
to invest your time, energy and money elsewhere.
Costs Benefits Rewards
Time Love Affection
Money Happiness Family
Energy Memories made Dinner at a nice
restaurant
Compromise Security Companionship

15.  Comparison level – the amount of rewards you believe you deserve
to get.
It develops out of experiences in past relationships that feeds into our
expectations of our current one. It is also influenced by social norms
that are reflected in the media, books, magazines etc. Our comparison
level changes with the more relationships we have. Somebody with a
low self-esteem will have a low comparison level and so will be
satisfied with very little rewards.
 Comparison level of alternatives – comparing whether we would
receive greater benefits and fewer costs from another relationship.
“Could I do better?” Duck - if costs outweigh the rewards in our current
relationship alternatives become more attractive. In a satisfying
relationship we do not recognise alternatives.
 Stages of relationship development:
1. Sampling stage – we explore the costs and rewards by
experimenting with them.
2. Bargaining stage – beginning of the relationship where partners
begin to exchange costs and rewards, negotiating what is most
profitable.
3. Commitment stage – costs and rewards become more
predictable and costs lessen.
4. Institutionalisation stage –partners are now settled as the norms
are established.

16. Evaluating Social Exchange
Theory Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET
Clarke & Mills argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship.
They suggest that exchange relationships (work colleagues) use SET but communal
relationships between romantic partners are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards
without keeping score.
The business metaphor to explain relationships is too reductionist.
 Direction of cause and effect
Argyle – we do not measure our costs and rewards until we are dissatisfied with the
relationship. We do not constantly consider alternatives.
Miller – people who rated themselves as being in a committed relationship spent less time
looking at images of attractive people. People in committed relationships ignore even the
most attractive alternatives
 Ignores equity (costs and rewards are perceived to be distributed fairly)
Equity is an important factor in relationship satisfaction, SET ignores equity.
 Measuring SET concepts
Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in order to measure them. Costs and
rewards are difficult to define because they differ between individuals .
It is unsure what values must come before we consider alternatives.
 Artificial research
Participants are usually placed in an unrealistic scenario with a stranger for a partner.
Studies using real couples have been less supportive of SET.
Studies are often snapshots of life making it un-generalisable to every-day life.
This doesn't paint a valid picture of real life couples.

17. Equity Theory - Walster
 Main criticism of social exchange theory.
 What matters most with equity is that partners’ level of profit is
roughly the same. This is not the same as equality where levels of
costs and rewards have to be the same. Where there is a lack of
equity, one person overbenifits and one underbenifits. This causes
dissatisfaction and unhappiness, especially for the one who is
receiving less.
 It is not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters its
the ratio of the two to each other. If a partner puts a lot of effort into
the relationship and gets a lot out of it then that is fair.
 Problems evolve when a partner puts great effort into the relationship
but receives little from it, they will become distressed. The greater
the perceived inequality the greater the dissatisfaction.
 What makes us most dissatisfied is a change in the levels of
perceived equity as time goes on.
 Behavioural changes - the put-upon partner will work hard to
make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is
possible. The more unequal the relationship the harder they have to
work.
 Cognitive changes will happen where the partner will re-evaluate

18. Evaluating Equity Theory
 Utne – survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity
with two self-report scales. The husbands and wives had been
together for 2+ years. Couples who found their relationship to be
more equitable were more satisfied than those who overbenifited
and underbenifited.
 Ryan – there are cultural differences in the link between equity and
satisfaction. Couples from an individualist culture considered their
relationships to be most satisfying when the relationship was
equitable. Couples from a collectivist culture were satisfied with
overbenifiting. This was true for men and women.
 Huesman – some people are less sensitive to equity.
◦ Benevolents – prepared to contribute more towards the relationship than
they get out of it.
◦ Entitleds – believe they deserve to be overbenifiting without feeling
distressed or guilty.
 Clarke & Mills – it is important to distinguish between types of
relationship. Equity is more important in work colleagues and
acquaintances but research is less supportive in romantic couples.
 Berg & McQuinn – equity did not increase in their longitudinal
study of dating couples

19. Rusbult’s Investment Model
 Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives
Satisfaction = more rewards, few costs
Alternatives to our relationship when dissatisfied
 Investment size – third factor influencing commitment. Investment refers
to the extent and importance of the resource associated with the
relationship. An investment is therefore something we would lose if the
relationship ended.
Intrinsic investments – resourced put directly into the resource e.g. time,
money, emotion
Extrinsic investments – resources not closely associated with the
relationship e.g. possessions
 Satisfaction VS commitment
The main psychological factor that causes people to stay together is
commitment not satisfaction. This is important as it can explain why
dissatisfied partners stay together. They have made investments that they
don’t want to see go to waste.
 Relationship maintenance mechanisms: accommodation, willingness
to sacrifice, forgiveness (behavioural) & positive illusions, ridiculing

20. Evaluating RIM
 Le & Agnew – meta-analysis of 52 studies between 1970-99 which
included 11,000 participants across 5 countries. Satisfaction,
comparison with alternatives and investment size were all predictors
if relationship commitment. More committed couples had longer
lasting relationships.
◦ This suggests Rusbult’s theory had validity as the study found the
outcomes were the same for both men and women, hetero/homosexual
relationships and across all cultures.
 Explains abusive relationships – Rusbult & Martz – Battered
women, women suffering from domestic violence, were likely to
return to their partners due to great investment levels and few
attractive alternatives. Therefore, satisfaction isn't the most
important factor.
 Goodfriend & Rusbult – making future plans was also an
important factor in new relationships, partners invest in making the
goals happen.
 The original model is very limited at explaining the complexity of
investment including how planning for the future influences
commitment.
 Much of the research conducted uses self-report techniques which

21. Duck’s Phase Model – Relationship Breakdown
 Intra-psychic phase – partner broods on the reasons for their
dissatisfaction, focusing mainly on their partner’s shortcomings.
They begin to weight the costs and benefits.
 Dyadic phase – interpersonal phase where the partner comes
clean about their problems. There may be heavy arguing which
results in a definitive strive to end the relationship or repair it.
 Social phase – the break up is made public. Gossip is traded and
encouraged, friends will provide reassurance. This is the definitive
stage.
 Grave-dressing stage – once the relationship is dead, the time
comes to bury it, by spinning a favourable story about the
breakdown for public consumption. This allows a partner to save
face at the expense of the other. Partners will blame the other for all
the misfortunes.
Privately a partner will try to come up with a story they are happy
with, by drawing upon their partners traits much more negatively.

22. Evaluating Duck’s Model
 Rollie & Duck – the model is oversimplified
A stage is added following grave-dressing, the resurrection stage. This is when ex-
partners turn to future relationships using the experience gained from the previous one.
Progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable, during earlier phases it is
possible to prevent breakdown.
Therefore, the model does not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups with their
inherent uncertainty and complexity.
 Methodological issues –
Most research is retrospective, couples have given their accounts some time after the
break-up. This means their recall may not be reliable.
It is hard to study the early phases of a relationship as researcher involvement may
make the situation worse resulting in the break-up.
 Real life applications - The model is useful because it recognises that different
repair strategies are more effective at particular points in a breakdown. E.g.
focusing on communication during the dyadic phase.
 Description rather than explanation – why do breakdowns occur? Flemlee – fatal
attraction hypothesis – getting too much of what you were looking for e.g.
sense of humour becomes ‘cant take anything seriously’.
 Cultural bias – Moghaddam – relationships in individualist cultures are generally
voluntary and come to an end easily, whereas collectivist cultures are likely to be
obligatory, less easy to end and in some case arranged without involvement.

23. Cont.
 Tashiro and Frazier - surveyed undergraduates who had
recently broken up with a romantic partner. They typically
reported that they had not only experienced personal distress,
but emotional growth. These students reported that breaking up
with their partner had given them new insights into themselves
and a clearer idea about future partners.
 Gender differences
Women are more likely to stress unhappiness and
incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are
particularly upset by 'sexual withholding'. Women have more
desire to stay friends after a relationship, whereas men want to
'cut their losses' and move on.
 Ethical issues in breakdown research
Carrying out research in this sensitive area raises many particular
issues of vulnerability, privacy and confidentiality. Ultimately,
the researcher faces the choice of pursuing valuable information
or terminating their involvement with a participant to prevent any
further harm befalling them.

24. Virtual Relationships in Social
Media Self-disclosure in virtual relationships
Self-disclosure is a crucial feature of face-to-face (ftf) relationships in the offline world. Therefore,
how does disclosure work for online relationships?
 Reduced Cues Theory
Sproull & Keisler – online relationships are less effective than ftf ones because they lack many of the
cues we normally depend on. These include nonverbal cues such as appearance. Online
relationships lack cues to our emotional state such as our facial expressions and tone of voice.
This leads to de-individualisation. Online relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and
aggressive communication and so are less likely to want to initiate a relationship.
 Hyperpersonal Model
Walther - Online relationships cane be more personal and involve greater disclosure. This is
because self-disclosure happens sooner and is often more intense.
Cooper & Sportolari – they are more likely to end as the excitement level isn’t met by the level of
trust between relationship partners. (boom & bust phenomenon).
Selective self-presentation – people have more control over what to disclose and what cues they
send.
Bargh – strangers on a train effect – when you’re aware that other people don’t know your identity so
you feel less accountable for your behaviour. So you may disclose more to a stranger than your
most intimate partner.
 Absence of Gating in Virtual Relationships
Online relationships are said to have no gates unlike ftf. Examples of gates include; attractiveness,
a stammer and social anxiety. Online relationships lack those cues and this means a relationship
can develop to the point where disclosure is frequent and deep.
Absence of gating also means that people can create online identities that are different from real life,
this may be superficial but allows for people to overlook features that would interfere with forming ftf

25. Evaluating Virtual Relationships
 Lack of evidence for reduced cues
Walther & Tidwell – people in online interactions use other cues, such as style and
timing of their messages. E.g. taking longer to reply to not appear overly interested.
Abbreviations, emoticons and emojis are used as effective substitutes for facial
expressions and tone of voice.
 Skype calls are removing the absence of cues by being able to see the person and
hear their tone of voice.
 Research support
Whitty & Joinson – people in online relationships often are motivated to self-s disclose
in ways which are hyperhonest or hyperdishonest. Questions asked in online
discussions tended to be very direct, probing and intimate. This is different to ftf
which often revolve around small talk.
 Types of online relationships and computer mediated conversation
Paine - Will determine the amount of information a person discloses. For example,
when online dating disclosure is reduced because the communicators anticipate
future meetings offline, which is something not entirely considered on chatrooms and
gaming sites.
 Relationships are multimodal – CMC is conducted both online and offline, it is not
an either/or situation, therefore what we decide to disclose in our online relationships
will be dependent on our offline interactions.
 Support for the absence of gating
McKenna & Bargh – lonely and anxious people were able to use online
communications to express their true selves. Of the romantic relationships that formed

26. Parasocial Relationships –
McCutcheon One sided, unreciprocated, relationship usually with a celebrity on which a fan expends a lot of
emotional energy, commitment and time.
 Stages based on the Celebrity Attitudes Survey:
1. Entertainment-social – least intense. Celebrities are a source of entertainment and social
interaction. Giles – fruitful source of gossip in the workplace.
2. Intense personal – intermediate level which reflects greater personal involvement in a
parasocial relationship with a celebrity. This may include obsessive thoughts and intense
feelings, ‘soul mates’.
3. Borderline pathological – strongest level of celebrity worship, featuring uncontrollable
fantasies and extreme behaviours.
 Absorption – addiction model - The tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of
deficiencies people have in their own lives. A parasocial relationship allows then an ‘escape from
reality’ or a way of finding fulfilment that they cant achieve through normal relationships.
Absorption – seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention
as far as possible on the celebrity.
Addiction – the individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a
stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity, this may result in irrational behaviour and
delusions.
 The attachment theory
Bowlby’s attachment theory suggested such early difficulties may lead to emotional troubles later in
life. Ainsworth identifies two attachment types associated with unhealthy emotional attachment:
insecure resistant & avoidant. Insecure resistant attachment types are more likely to form parasocial

27. Evaluating Parasocial
Relationships Maltby – link between body image and celebrity worship. Girls who had an
intense parasocial relationship with a celebrity whose body shape they
admired had poor body Images – link to anorexia (RLL).
 Maltby – entertainment social stage was linked to extraverted personality
traits, those with intense social with neurotic traits and the borderline
pathological with psychotic personality types.
 Problems with attachment theory – McCutcheon measured attachment
types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 participants, the researchers
found no link between attachment and development of parasocial
relationships.
 Methodological issues – most research uses self-report methods to
collect data, this will impact the validity of the results as participants may lie
or exaggerate.
 Most studies are correlational e.g. body image, does it cause parasocial
relationships or does parasocial relationships cause poor body image?
Longitudinal research to better results.
 Problem with the absorption, addiction model – provides a description
rather than an explanation of why people become addicted or absorbed
into celebrity worship.
 Cultural influences – Schmind & Kilmmt report that this tendency is not
culturally specific, attachments to the fictional character Harry Potter, were