A Level Psychology revision of relationships for AQA exam board. (pictures removed)

1. Relationships revision
Ella Warwick

2. Specification
• The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, including the
relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.
• Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure;
physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory,
including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
• Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory
and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison
with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship
breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
• Virtual relationships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual relationships;
effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships.
• Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption
addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.

3. Evolutionary
• Sexual selection – attributes and behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed down.
• Human reproductive behaviour – behaviours that increase survival chances of genes.
• Anisogamy – difference between male and female gametes.
• Intersexual selection – strategies one sex uses to select the other sex. The preference will be for certain
qualities of the other sex.
• Consequences of making the wrong partner choice is worse or the female since she is investing more.
• Research showed 75% of males answer yes to “would you have sex with me” and 0% females.
• A male who offers good resources is more attractive as the child will have greater chance of survival. Food and shelter are
translated in to money etc now.
• Research shows that females pace greater value on resource and males on attractiveness. – Buss
• On dating websites, women offer attractiveness and males offer resources.
• Runaway process – the idea of natural selection doing natural selection and passing down preferences for these selected
traits.
• Sexy son hypothesis – women look for male traits that will make a son more likely to give grandchildren as he is more
attractive.
• Intrasexual selection – strategies between one sex competing.
• Males compete for reproductive rights, the bigger the better.
• Males show decreased attraction after sex so they don’t spend too much time with one woman, females
show the opposite to try and secure a good father.
• seek characteristics of youthfulness that suggest fertility.
• Baby face hypothesis
• Waist-hip ratio
• Ignores social and cultural influences (contraception, women providing for themselves)

4. Factors affecting attraction – self disclosure
• Self disclosure - revealing personal information, more is revealed as the relationship goes on,
these strengthen the romantic bond.
• Social penetration theory – reciprocal exchange of information (onion analogy), it also indicates
trust as it broadens and deepens. There is breadth and depth of the onion.
• There is low and high risk information.
• Strong positive correlations between relationship satisfaction and levels of self-disclosure.
• Only measures heterosexual couples
• 57% of homosexuals said that self disclosure mainly maintained their relationship.
• Cultural differences – collectivist cultures are much less disclosing
• Self disclosure can contribute towards a break down “I don’t think this is working”. (ducks phase
model dyadic phase)
• Correlation vs causation – could it be satisfaction causing self disclosure?
• Application – used in couple therapy to encourage talking about problems.

5. Factors affecting attraction – physical
attractiveness
• Attractive traits are indicators of good health.
• Symmetrical faces are rated more attractive as it is an honest signal of genetic fitness.
• Baby face hypothesis – the features trigger caring instincts and make us want to form n attachment.
• Attractiveness is important even after relationship is formed.
• The Halo effect – if someone is physically attractive we make judgements on their personality (kindness).
• Were rated more politically knowledgeable – observed in real life.
• Governmental effects
• Matching hypothesis – choose partners of similar attractiveness.
• Meta-analysis shows correlation.
• Evidence against – dating websites people go for people above them.
• May perceive ourselves incorrectly.
• Within culture consistency – shows evolutionary race preference roots.
• Physical attractiveness is subjective.
• Not everyone considers physical attractiveness as significantly (limitation as doesn't’t work alone).
• We may base attractiveness on how people present themselves not how attractive they actually are (makeup, clothing).
• Online daters go for partners considered more attractive than them selves.

6. Factors affecting attraction – filter theory
1. Social demography – students 10x likely to form friendships with people in their own building.
2. Similarity in attitudes – couples less than 18 months, basic agreement on values. Relationship fades after
a few days if no similarities.
3. Complimentary – more important for long term relationships, meet each others needs.
• Evidence shows that similarity increases over time.
• Evidence that is not always present.
• Good face validity – assumes key factors in the relationship change over time which most agree with.
• 18 month cut off point? – relationships move at different speeds
• Homosexual couples?
• Other cultures?
• Direction of cause and effect - attitudes come into line as an effect of the relationship.
• Temporal validity? – dating someone outside our culture is more available.
• Ignores individual differences
• Determinism – what about conscious decisions?

7. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social
Exchange Theory
• It is an economic theory – maximizing profits (companionship) and minimizing costs (stress). Profitable relationships continue and non-profitable
relationships fail.
• The theory is more applicable to friendships and business relationships.
• Comparison level – a measure of profit. A judgement of the reward level by experiences and social norms. We pursue a relationship when the
comparison level is high.
• Comparison level for alternatives – considering whether we will gain more from a new relationship. If a potential relationship exceeds our comparison
level a new relationship may occur.
• Comparison level for alternatives depends on our current relationship, other options are more attractive when costs outweigh rewards, if satisfied we
ignore alternatives, as there are always alternatives around.
• Comparison levels:
• Sampling – explore rewards and costs of relationships.
• Bargaining – negotiate costs and rewards.
• Commitment – costs reduce and rewards increase and relationship becomes more stable.
• Institutionalisation – the costs and rewards norms are established.
• Assumes people are inherently selfish.
• Cause and effect – we do not consider the profit until we become dissatisfied.
• Doesn't consider equity – people are more satisfied when in equitable relationships.
• Costs and rewards are judged subjectively and are unquantifiable.
• Artificial tasks (game paying + snapshot studies) – more realistic studies have been less supportive.

8. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Equity
Theory
• Another economic theory that suggests fairness is the key to a good relationship (SET doesn't account for
this), both partners levels of profits should be the same.
• Inequity leads to dissatisfaction (strong correlation) – an under-benefiting partner may feel anger, and over-
benefiting partner may feel guilt.
• Inequity doesn't mean inequality, its about ratios.
• Equity changes throughout the relationship, at the beginning its natural to give more than you receive. If this
continues it may cause dissatisfaction.
• Inequity has to be addressed to save the relationship the change could be cognitive or actual.
• Revision can lead to abuse being accepted as cruelty is a for your own good.
• Research support – more equitable relationships were more satisfied – validity.
• Culturally bound - collectivist cultures were more satisfied when over-benefiting.
• Individual differences – some partners are happy to contribute more or less (benevolents and entitled).
• Theory is more applicable to friendships and business relationships.
• Self disclosure is more important on long and lasting relationships.
• Study showed that equity doesn't increase with satisfaction.

9. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult’s
Model – a development of SET
• Commitment to a relationship depends on:
• Satisfaction level – extent of rewards outweighing costs.
• Comparison level with alternatives – judgement if different relationship would increase satisfaction level.
• Investment size – resources associated with romantic relationship.
• Intrinsic investment – any resources put into the relationship (money, self-disclosure).
• Extrinsic investment – investments which previously didn't feature (house, children, memories).
• Fails to consider complexity of investments (investing in future plans)
• If satisfaction is high, alternatives are less attractive, and investments are increasing then there should be a high commitment level.
• Results were true for homosexual couples too – more valid.
• Rusbult argued that people stay in relationships because of commitment not satisfaction. They have made an investment they
don’t want to waste.
• Explains why people stay in abusive relationships.
• Relationship maintenance mechanisms
1. Accommodation (promoting the relationship)
2. Willingness to sacrifice
3. Forgiveness
4. Positive illusions
5. Ridiculing alternatives
• Based on self report techniques – gets the subjective perceptions of investment.
• Correlation vs causation, so we cannot conclude if any factors cause commitment.

10. Theories of Romantic Relationships: Duck’s
Phase Model
• Phases of a breakdown:
1. Intra-psychic phase – becomes dissatisfied so weighs up pros and cons.
2. Dyadic phase – discuss dissatisfaction with the partner.
3. Social phase – seek support and encourage “side-picking” of friends.
4. Grave dressing phase – favourable story is made.
• The model is incomplete – a 5th stage was later added where partners use what
they have learnt for other relationships.
• Unreliable data as interviews are usually conducted after break u not during, so
rely on memory and perception.
• Focuses on how rather than why the break up occurs.
• Much of the research is based on individualist cultures (less voluntary to start or
end).
• Application to helping reverse the process in therapy.

11. Virtual Realtionships
• Computer mediated communication may lead to:
• Less self disclosure (reduces cues theory)– absence on non-verbal cues lead to de-individuation
and bluntness.
• There are cues but they are different (emoji's) so may be no differences between ftf and cmc.
• More self disclosure (hyperpersonal model) – relationships become more intense quicker so
disclosure is easier.
• Research support for hyper-honest and hyper-dishonest conversations.
• Self disclosure is manipulated – feeling of anonymity makes us less accountable
• An advantage of computer mediated communication is the absence of gating (a physical
obstacle e.g. unattractiveness, stammer, anxiety). A relationship can develop first.
• This can be good as shy people can express themselves etc.
• Can be helpful in supporting weaker people – online started relationships survived more than off-line ones.
• This can be bad as people could pretend to be people they are not.
• Doesn't distinguish between types of cmc – validity
• Underestimates complexity of relationships as doesn’t recognize that relationships are
usually both on and off-line.

12. Para-social relationships
• Celebrity attitudes scale:
• Entertainment-social – source of entertainment.
• Intense-personal – personally involved and has thoughts of them.
• Borderline-pathological – behaviour is extreme and fantasies are uncontrollable.
• Absorption-addiction model:
• Parasocial relationships make up for deficiencies in a life.
• Absorption – focus of attention and become absorbed in their life.
• Addiction – the individual needs to increase their dose for satisfaction.
• Maltby makes correlation between the stages and psychological malfunctioning.
• Limited explanatory power as it describes characteristics but not why.
• Attachment theory explanation:
• Bowlby’s theories of attachment (IWM)
• Insecure-resistant are most likely to form para-social relationships to have their unfulfilled needs met.
• Insecure-avoidant are less likely to seek any relationship type to avoid pain.
• Lacks support – study found that people with insecure attachments were no more likely to form PSRs than securely attached people - has little
predictive strength.
• Evidence that it is innate – across culture types there are similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter.
• Most research uses self report. People may lie, or be influenced by demand characteristics and social desirability.