Relationships AQA Paper 3 PSYCHOLOGY

2.  Sexual selection explains why some characteristics that might
appear disadvantageous actually lead to an advantage in
human reproductive behaviour.
 Human reproductive behaviour refers to any behaviours which
relate to opportunities to reproduce and thereby increase the
survival chances of our genes.
 Anisogamy – Refers to the differences between male and
female sex cells. (two mating strategies)
 Inter-sexual selection – Preferred strategy of the female, quality
over quantity, it pays for females to be choosy.
 Fisher: ‘Sexy Son’ – A female mates with a male who has a
desirable characteristic and this trait is inherited by her son.
 Intra-sexual selection – Preferred strategy of the male, quantity
over quality. It refers to the competition between males to be
able to mate with a female.

3.  Research support for anisogamy – Buss (1989) found
that female placed greater value on resource-related
characteristics. Males valued reproductive capacity.
 Research support for inter-sexual selection – Clark
and Hatfield: A woman approached men saying ‘will
you sleep with me tonight?’ 75% said yes, and no
women said yes.
 Ignores social and cultural influences – Partner
preference has been influenced by changing social
norms of sexual behaviour. Women’s greater role in
the workplace means that they are no longer
dependent on men to provide for them.
 Waist hip ratio in indication of fertility. (Singh)

4.  Self-disclosure is revealing personal information about
yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their selves
as the relationship develops. (These self-disclosures can
strengthen a bond)
 Self-disclosure is a major concept within social penetration
theory of how relationships develop.
 As they increasingly disclose more information to each
other, partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s
lives.
 The theory has two elements, breadth and depth. As these
increase, romantic partners become more committed.
 At first we disclose ‘low risk’ information and as the
relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper, to
reveal our true selves.
 Shaver (1988) – For a relationships to develop, there needs
to be a reciprocal element to disclosure.

5.  Research support – Hendrick (2004) found that men
and women who used self-disclosure were more
satisfied/committed to their relationship.
 Real-life application – Research into self-disclosure
can help people who want to improve communication
in their relationships.
 Cultural differences – Tang et al (2013) found that
men and women in the USA self-disclosure more
sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in
China.
 Discussions of the deteriorating relationship often
include self-disclosures but they may contribute to it
breaking down.

6.  Shackelford and Larson (1997) found that people with
symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
 McNulty et al (2008) found evidence that the initial
attractiveness that brought their partners together continued
to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage.
 The halo effect – We have fixed ideas about the personality
traits attractive people must have, and they are universally
positive.
 Dion et al found that physically attractive people are
consistently rated as kind, sociable etc. (self-fulfilling
prophecy)
 The matching hypothesis states that people choose
romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical
attractiveness to each other. To do this we have to make a
realistic judgement about our own ‘value’ to potential
partner.

7.  Research support for the halo support – Palmer and Peterson
(2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as
more smart and competent than unattractive people.
 Individual differences – Towhey (1979) asked participants to
rate people based on a photograph and a bit of information.
Participants who scored highly on a sexist attitudes
questionnaire were more influenced by looks.
 Role of cultural influences – research shows that what is
considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures.
 Cunningham et al (1995) found that female features of large
eyes, strong cheekbones, and small nose, high eye brows
were rated highly attractive by all races.

8.  Filter theory is an explanation of relationship
formation. It says that a series of different factors
progressively limits the pool of available romantic
partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities.
 Social demography – factors that influence the
chances of potential partners meeting (location,
social class, religion etc.)
 Similarity in attitudes – Partners will often share
belief and values because of the first filter.
 Complementarity – This concerns the ability to meet
each others needs. Two partners may complement
each other when they have traits that each other
lack. (Important for long term couples)

9.  Evidence – Filter theory assumes that the key
factors in a relationship change over time. Winch
(1958) found that similarities of personality,
interests and attitudes between partners are
typical of the earliest stages of a relationship.
 Failure to replicate – Levinger (1974) pointed out
that many studies have failed to replicate findings
that formed the basis of filter theory.
 Anderson et al (2003) found that similarity
increases over time and this suggests that
complementarity is not necessarily a common
feature of longer-term relationships.

10.  Social exchange theory is a theory of how relationships form and
develop. It assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest
in exchanging rewards and costs. A successful relationship is
maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives
are less attractive.
 Comparison level – there are two ways of measuring profit. The
first being comparison level. It is the amount of reward that you
believe you deserve to get. It develops out of our experiences of
previous relationships which feed into our expectations of the
current one. (it is also influenced by norms)
 Comparison level for alternatives – The second measure of profit
provides a wider context for our current relationship. Do we believe
we could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another
relationship? (or being single)
 Stages of relationship development – sampling, bargaining,
commitment, and institutional.

11.  Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET – the
theory fails to distinguish between two types of
relationship, exchange (which SET fits), and
communal where they don’t keep score.
 SET ignores equity – There is support for equity in
relationships and the view that this is more
important than just the balance of rewards and
costs. Neglect of this factor means that SET is a
limited explanation.
 Artificial research – The majority of studies
supporting SET use artificial tasks in artificial
conditions.

12.  Equity theory is another economic theory which developed in
response to criticisms of social exchange theory. SET fails to
take into account the needs most people have for equity in a
relationship.
 Equity means ‘fairness’ according to Waltser (1978) what
matters most with equity is that both 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 for each partner.
 According to equity theory, it is not the size or the amount of the
rewards and costs that matters, it’s the ratio of the two to each
other. If one partner puts a lot into the relationship but gets a lot
out then it will seem fair.
 Problems arise when one puts a lot in but gets little back.
 Changes in perceived equity – makes us dissatisfied, at the start
it seems natural to put more than you receive.
 Dealing with inequity – compensate to make the relationship
equitable

13.  Supporting research evidence – Utne et al (1984)
found that couples who considered their
relationship equitable were more satisfied than
those who were over/under-benefiting.
 Cultural differences – Research suggests that
couples from individualist cultures found the
relationship more satisfying when it was
equitable. Couples from collectivist cultures found
it most satisfying when they were over-benefiting.
 Individual differences – Some people are less
sensitive to equity than others. (Benevolents and
Entitleds)

14.  Rusbult (2011) commitment depends on: satisfaction level,
comparison with alternatives, and investment size.
 Satisfaction level is based on the comparison level. A satisfying
relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs.
 A comparison with alternatives: romantic partners asking themselves
if their needs could be better met outside of their current
relationship.
 An investment is anything we would lose if the relationship were to
end. There are two types of investment: intrinsic (resources you put
in) and extrinsic (resources you didn’t have before)
 The main reason people stay in relationships is commitment. They
are committed to their partner because they have made an
investment and do not want to see it go to waste. Couples show
commitment in everyday maintenance behaviours. According to the
model, partners act to promote the relationship. They will also put
their partners interests first, and forgive them.

15.  Supporting evidence – Agnew (2003) found that
satisfaction, comparison level an investment size all
predicted relationship commitment. Greater
commitment = stable and long relationship.
 Explains abusive relationship – Rusbult studied
abused women and found that those most lively to
return to an abusive partner reported making the
greatest investment.
 Over simplifies investment – Goodfriend and Agnew
(2008) point out that there is more to investment
than just the resources you have put into the
relationship. In the early stages you will make very
few investments.

16.  Duck (2007) argued that the ending of a relationship
is not a one-off event but a process that takes time
and goes through four distinct phases.
 Intra-psychic phase – The partner nulls their thoughts
over privately (I can’t stand this anymore)
 Dyadic phase – They cannot avoid talking about it any
longer (I would be justified in leaving)
 Social phase – The break up is made public, and
partners will seek support. (I mean it)
 Grave-dressing phase – This is the aftermath. Once
the relationship is dead, they come up with a
favourable story about the break up for the public.

17.  Incomplete model – Duck added a fifth phase –
the resurrection phase. Ex-partners turn their
attention to future relationships using their
experience from the ended one.
 Description rather than explanation
 Cultural Bias – Relationships in individualist
cultures voluntary and frequently come to and
end. Relationships in collectivist cultures are
more compulsory, less easy to end, and involve
the wider family, and in some cases arranged
with little involvement of the partners.

18.  Self-disclosure is a critical feature of face-to-face
relationships in the offline world. There are two major
and contrasting theories: reduced cues theory, and the
hyperpersonal model.
 Reduced cue theory – Online relationships are less
effective than face to face ones because they may lac
cues we normally depend on in face to face interactions.
 The hyperpersonal model – online relationships can be
more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than
face to face ones because self-disclosure happens
earlier. (people can manipulate their online image)
 Face to face interactions are gated (obstacle) because
you can see if they are unattractive. A huge advantage of
online relationships is the absence of gating. (McKenna)

19.  Lack of research support for reduced cues theory
– The theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal
cues are entirely missing from online
relationships.
 Types of CMC relationships i.e. people disclose
more on FaceBook than they do on Ebay.
 Support for the absence of gating – McKenna
looked at CMC used by socially anxious people.
They found that people were able to express their
‘true selves’ more than in face to face situations.

20.  Parasocial relationships are one-sided, unreciprocated
relationships, usually with a celebrity, on which the ‘fan’ spendsa
lot of emotional energy, commitment and time.
 There are three levels of parasocial relationships: entertainment
level – least intense level, celebrities are viewed as a source of
entertainment. Intense-personal – intermediate level which
reflects a greater personal involvement. Borderline pathological –
strongest level, featuring uncontrollable fantasies and extreme
behaviours.
 The absorption-addiction model – parasocial relationships allow
people to escape reality, absorption is seeking fulfilment in
celebrity worship. Addiction – the person needs to sustain their
commitment by feeling closer.
 The attachment theory explanation – insecure-resistant types are
most likely to form para-social relationships as their needs have
not been met.

21.  Support for the absorption-addiciton model – Maltby
(2005) found that females with parasocial
relationships with celebrities with ideal body types
tend to have poor body image.
 Problems with attachment theory – Studies have
shown that people with an insecure-resistant
attachment type are no more likely than securely
attached people to form parasocial relationships.
 Methodological issues – most studies on parasocial
relationships use self-report methods to collect data.