Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Relationships - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Male-sperm:small,mobile and continuous production from puberty to old age.
      - Female-egg(ova):larger,static and produced at intervals for a limited period of years.
  - - - 'Survival of the fittest'-Darwin
    - - 'Survival of the sexiest'
        
        Inter sexual selection:preferred by females
        
        Choosing mates for desirable characteristics:Runaway process or sexy son hypothesis.
        
        Better quality offspring so attractive and healthy.
        
        Quality over quantity.
        
        Intra sexual selection:preferred by males
        
        Competing for females.
        
        Winner gets female and genes passed on and losers don't get genes passed on.
        
        Quantity over quality.
  - - - Ignores social and cultural influences
        
        Chang et al. (2011)
        
        Bereczkei (1997)
        
        Alpha bias
    - - Support for intra-sexual selection
        
        Buss (1989)&(2003)
      - Support for inter-sexual selection
        
        Clarke and Hatfield (1989)
      - Waist-hip ratio research
        
        Singh (1993&2002)
      - Lonely hearts research
        
        Waynforth and Dunbar (1995)
- - - - Walster et al. (1966)
        
        ++
        
        There is cultural consistency in what is considered
        
        Walster et al. (1966)
        
        --
        
        Not everyone considers physical attractiveness to be important
        
        Towhey (1979)
        
        Online dating research has not supported its assumptions.
        
        Taylor et al. (2011)
        
        Mixed support for matching hypothesis
        
        ++
        
        Feingold's meta-analysis (1988)
        
        --
        
        Walster et al. (1966)
        
        nomothetic approach
        
        Individual differences so should take a more ideographic approach
      - Halo effect
        
        Physical attractiveness is generalised.
        
        We hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of attractive people. We believe that all their other attributes are overwhelmingly positive.
        
        Dion et al. (1972):Physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind,strong,sociable and successful compared with unattractive people.
        
        ++
        
        Support research for the Halo effect
        
        1 more item...
      - Shackleford and Larson (1997)
        
        People with symmetrical faces are considered more attractive as they have an honest set of genes. Baby like features are also attractive as trigger an instinct to protect and care.
  - - - Social demography (1st level filter).Such as social class and/or education or geographical location (proximity).
        
        Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter).
  - - - Revealing personal information about yourself like thoughts, feelings and experiences.More disclosure=greater feelings of intimacy
        
        When you reveal, it displays trust,to go further the partner must also reveal sensitive information.You get greater understanding of each other.
        
        Breadth and Depth:important factors in SD.As these increase commitment does:-metaphor of onion,-we reveal superficial into first,-moving into intimate details later.
        Breadth is restricted at first as some topics are 'off limits'.As depth increases so can breadth.
        
        Reciprocity of self-disclosure:Reiss and Shaver.Argued that self-disclosure must also be reciprocated so both partners should self-disclose to each other for a successful relationship.
        
        Strengths
        
        Real-life applications:Hass&Staford
        
        Support research studies:Sprecher&Hendrick
        
        Weaknesses
        
        Theory does not imply to all cultures:Tang et al.
        
        Self-disclosure linked to relationship breakdown too
        
        Correlation does not mean causation
- - - - Absorption-addiction model:McCutcheon suggests that PSR can make up for personal deficiencies e.g.lack of fulfilment.Can also provide an escape from mundane lives.Can be triggered towards a higher level by stressful situations such as man going through a divorce and miley cyrus's music helped him so he got to be point he got his whole body with tatoos of Miley.
        
        Model has two components.Absorption:has addictive qualities so individuals go to further and further lengths to maintain a sense of fulfilment via the parasocial relationship.(enduring love).
        Absorption:they have deficits in their own sense of personal identity-absorption an attampt to establish personal identity.Addiction:the indicidual needs to increase their 'dose' of involvement to gain satisfaction.This may lead to extreme behaviours and delusional thoughts.
        
        ++
        
        Research support:Maltby et al. studied female teenagers who reported an intense personal relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired.These females tended to have a poor body image,linked to an eating disorder.
        
        Maltby et al also associated entertainment-social with extravert personality traits,intense-personal with neurotic pathological level with psychotic personality types.Both studies support the model because they show a correlation between the level of celebrity worship and different or disordered psychological functioning.
        
        --
        
        Lacks explanatory power:Only discribes the characteristics of people at different levels of intensity but does not explain why they develop.This does not help us preventing more dangerous and disturbing forms of PSR.So model is limited in its explanatory power and its application to support other peole.
      - McCutcheon found that in his Celebrity attitude scale (CA scale).20% of participants fell under the entertainment-social level,10% in intense-personal and 1% in Borderline-pathological.
  - - - ++
        
        Cross cultural support:Schmid and Klimmt found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in indicidualist and collectist cultures.So tendency is not culturally specific.SUggests that the formation of PSR may be universal and innate and may be an adaptive behaviour.
      - --
        
        Lack support evidence.McCutcheon et al. found that participants with insecure attachments were no less likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrities than that secure attachment styles.This decreases the validity of the research as it fails to find support for this crucial question.
- - - - CMCs may involve more self-disclosure:Hyperpersonal model suggests early self-disclosure=CMCs develop quickly which makes relationship more intense and intimate.However=high excitement level but low levels of trust=end more quickly.
        
        ++:Hyperpersonal model has supporting evidence=Whitty and Joinson found supporting evidence for both hyperhonest and hyperdishonest online disclosures.
      - --:Lack of supporting research for reduced cues theory.=other cues in CMCs just not verbal ones(Walther and Tidwell).Ther might be no differences in self-disclosure between CMC and FtF relationship which dos not support reduced cues.
  - - - McKenna and Bargh argue that facial disfigurements or stammer may be an obstacle to a FtF relationship but these are not there in online relationships.
        
        Absence of gating has benefits as without obstacles people are free to create a different identity online e.g.shy person can become more extraverted online.However people can create new personas.
        
        ++:McKenna and Bargh found that lonely and socially anxious people were able to express their 'true selves' more in CMC than in FtF. Of relationships that initially formed online,70% survived more than two years, higher than for relationships formed in the offline world.This suggests that CMC can be helpful to support people who are socially anxious to build confidence in forming relationships.
- - - - Use of comparison level (CL)-judgement of the reward level we expect in a relationship experiences and social norms.We will generally pursue a relationship where the CL is high but some people aka with low self-esteem may have low CLs.
        
        Comparison of level for alternatives (CLalt) involves considering whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship,assuming we can only select one partner.We will remain in a relationship when we consider it is more rewarding than alternatives even if there are available alternatives.
        
        Duck argues that there are always alternatives around and if costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more attractive.We may not notice them if we are in a satisfying relationship.
        
        4 stages of relationship=1.Sampling:the couple explores the rewards and costs in a variety of relationships.Bargaining:The couple negaociates the relationship and agrees the rewards and costs.Commitment:The couple settles into the relationship and the exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable.Institutionalisation:Norms and expectations are firmly established.
        
        ++
        
        Based on social/economic approach:people have free will and choice (takes into account individual differences)unlike in other theories of relationship formation,such as socio-biological.
        
        The Cl-alt:real world application:helps to explain why somebody would terminate a relationship they were satisfied with (in that the alternative partner can offer even more!)
        
        --
        
        Research involves artificial tasks and conditions:game playing and distribution of rewards and costs in a scenario where partners were together just for the study.More realistic research with actual partners have been less suportive of SET.Fails to support its assertions which decreases the validity.
        
        Assuming that all relationship are exchanged based:Clark and Mills:argue that exchange relationships may involve profit but romantic relationship involve giving and receiving of rewards without thinking of profit.Starting a relationship with tallying all the exchanges might be viewed as suspicious and distasteful.So SET does not provide suitable explanation for all types of relationship.
- - - - If we perceive inequity in our relationship we try to restore it:1.Put in less/more.2.Change the amount you demand from it.3.Change perception of inputs/outputs.To change underbenifitting=communication,cognitive shift.
        
        ++
        
        Research support:Utne et al. (1984)=found thta newly weds who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who considered themselves as over- or underbenifitting.So profit is not the key issue in judging relationship rather it's equity.Supports equity as an explanation for romantic relationship and increases therefore it's validity.
        
        --
        
        May not be valid in all cultures:Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found couples in an individualist culture linked satisfaction to equity but partners in a collectivist culture were most satified when they were overbenefitting.True for both man and women so suggests that it is more about social consistency than gender-based differences.Can not generalise findings to all cultures which
        partially limits equity as an explanation of all romantic relationship.
        
        Individual differences:Huseman et al. (1987): suggests that some peolpe are less sensitive to equity than others.Some partners are benevolent as they are happy to contribute more than they get whereas others believe they deserve to be entitleded,so overbeniffitting without guilt or distress.Shows that theory is far from being a universal characterists and is more subjective to each individual so rightly questioning the validity of equity as an explanation of romanric relationship.
- - - - Two types of relationship:intrinsic:any resources put directly into the relationship-money,energy and self-disclosure.Extrinsic:investments that previously did not feature in the relationship which are now closely associated with it-purchased house together,children,shared memories.
        
        Commitment=investment+satisfaction+alternatives.High levels of satisfaction so more rewards than costs+alternatives are less attractive+the sizes of their investments are increasing=partners will be committed to the relationship.
        
        Commitment matters more than satisfation.Explains why for example a dissatified partner stays in a relationship when their investment levels are high.They will be willing to work hard to repair problems in the relationship so their investment is not wasted.
        
        Relationship maintenance mechanisms:1.Promoting the relationship (accommodation).2.Putting their partner's need first (willingness to sacrifice).3.Forgive them for any serious transgression (forgiveness).4.A partner may be negative about tempting alternatives/other people's relationship (derogation of alternatives).5.A partner may be unrealistic positive about their partner (positive illusions).
        
        ++
        
        Research support:Le and Agnew's review found that satisfaction,comparison with alternatives and investment size all predict relationship commitment.Where commitment was the greatest,relationships were most stable and lasted longest.Particularly strong given that the results were true for men and women in both hetersexual and homosexual relationships.Claims are universal which reinforces valid.
        
        Explains why people stay in abusive relationships:Rusbult and Martz found that women who reported making the greatest investment and who had the fewest attractive a;ternatives were the most likely to return to the partners who had abused them.Concept of satisfaction cannot explain this but commitment levels can.It explains the apparently inexplicable behaviour of staying in an abusive relationship.
        
        --
        
        Much of researches is the use of correlations:Strong correlations have been established between the factors within the model.But no matter how strong the correlation it does not follow that one variable causes the other.We cannot conclude from which factors,if any,might cause commitment which decreases the validy to the investment model.
        
        Model is oversimplified:Goodfriend and Agnew argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into the relationship.Early relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in future plans.Its the future plans that motivate partners to commit so that plans can become reality.Original model fails to consider the true complexity of investment.
- - - - Each levels have a threshold: if the threshold is crossed, we move on the next stage of the model.However partner may reassess and decide the relationship isn't so bad,halting the process of breakdown.
        
        Duck's phase model or breakdown:1.Intrapsychic processes-personal brooding-Social withdrawal-'rumination'.Resentment.Brooding on partner's faults& relational costs.Re-evaluation of alternatives to relationship.Threshold:I can't stand this anymore.2.Dyadic-discusion with partner-talk about 'our relationship',equity,roles.Reassessment of goals,possibilities,commitments.Discussion of discontents/issues.Threshol:I'd be justified in withdrawing.3.Social processes-Issues made public-going public;seeking support from others.Threshold: I mean it.4.Grave dressing processes-social face-tidying up memories;making relational histories.Threshold:It's now inevitable.
        
        Resurrection processes:recreating sense of own social value,defining what to get out of relationships.Preparation for future relationship.Threshold:Time to get a new life.Reframing of past relational life:What I learned and how things will be different.
        
        ++
        
        Application to helping people reverse the process:Model suggests that some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage rather than another e.g.intra-psychic stage partners could brood more positively.Less helpful if brooding was encouraged if a person is already at social stage.Suggests that the model can lead to supportive suggestions that may help people through this difficult time their lives.
        
        --
        
        Original model what incomplete:Rollie and Duck (2006) added a fifth resurrection phase in which ex-partners begin to use what they learned from the last relationship to prepare for a future one.The refined version also clarified that movements through the stages is neither linear nor inevitable and partners may return to an earlier phase.This suggests that original phase model is therefore only a partial explanation of the process of relationship breakdown.
        
        Research based on individualist cultures.Moghaddam et al. (1993) propose releationships in individualist cultures are mostly voluntary andend quite often whereas in collictivist cultures relationship are more frequently 'obligatory' and less easy to end.Concept of relationship differs between cultures and therefore the process if relationship breakdown is likely to differ.Model can only be applied to some cultures and types of relationship.