Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Relationships - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Couples therapy aims to increase the number of positive exchanges between partners and decrease negative ones
      - The success of couples counselling can be used to assess the validity of this theory
      - Christensen (2004) found in a study of 60 couples that after therapy 66% reported sig. improvement as a direct result of an increase in positive exchanges
    - - Individual differences in our perception of what constitutes a cost and a benefit, hindering the application of the theory
      - One huge benefit might be spending time getting to know the other's family but that could be a major con for someone else
      - This means that SET cannot be applied nomothetically
    - - In the communal couple, individuals are more worried about the other's needs and happiness above their own
      - Only in the exchange couple is there the score keeping predicted by SET
      - Clark and Mills (2011) identified 2 different types of couples; the communal couple and the exchange couple
      - The existence of the communal couple doesn't support the theory
    - - Although many of the central assumptions of SET were supported by research, it became clear that for most people, profit is less important than fairness
      - The SET was modified in several respects, resulting in the Equity Theory
    - - Someone with low self-esteem will be satisfied with little profit and will perceive alternative choices as unlikely to be an improvement
      - Self-esteem hugely influences both comparison levels
      - Self-esteem becomes an additional factor influencing cost/benefit analysis and isn't something initially considered
- - - - Huseman (1987) found that not all romantic partners are concerned with achieving equity
      - They describe some partners as benevolents, who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it, whereas, entitleds deserve to be over-benefited and accept their over-benefit with no guilt or perception of it being unjust
    - - Women are also more disturbed/likely to act on this
      - Sprecher (1992) found that women experience more guilt if they perceive they are over-benefiting
      - Women have a tendency to view themselves as under-benefiting in comparison to men
      - The authors explain this by suggesting that we are more aware of issues surrounding gender equality in modern marriage and these perceptions may be a result of our heightened sensitivity
      - DeMaris (2010) found that there were gender differences in perception of equity
      - Women also tend to put their romantic relationships at the centre of their world, more so than men, increasing their sensitivity
    - - They cannot be applied to Eastern, more collectivist cultures
      - Moghaddam argues that equity is only relevant to the individualistic values of North America
      - This validates the claim that this theory cannot be applied nomothetically
      - However, the same wasn't found for collectivist couples, high satisfaction was reported for over-benefiting not equity
      - Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) who found that individualistic couples did indeed report higher satisfaction when they perceived high equity
      - Any attempt to apply this theory elsewhere is imposed etic
    - - Utne (1984) surveyed 118 married couples aged 16-45 (together for at least 2yrs)
      - Findings
        
        Strong positive correlation between the amount of equity each partner perceived and how happy they were
        
        This directly supports the theory and its validity as an explanation of successful romantic relationships
- - - - This would explain why couples counselling is successful in saving long-term relationships from break down
      - The extensive self-disclosure that partners work towards during the course of therapy would explain why it's so valuable in preventing marriage/relationship breakdown
    - - Researchers found that there were cultural variations in willingness to disclose certain types of info - particularly those relating to sexual intimacy/history
      - Partners from Western cultures tend to disclose freely of such info, but it is rarely shared in collectivist cultures like China
      - Cross-cultural research by Tang (2013) highlights that self-disclosure theory may be culturally biassed
      - This is a limitation of the theory
    - - Laurencau (2005
        
        It was found that self-disclosure in each partner was positively correlated with intimacy levels
        
        Furthermore, less intimate couples rarely engaged in self-disclosure
        
        Asked ppts in long-term marriages to write daily diary entries involving disclosure and intimacy
      - Hass and Stafford (1998)
        
        Research investigating the strength of the theory with gay and lesbian ppts totally supported the theory
      - Sprecher (2013)
        
        Surveyed 50 heterosexual couples and found that the amount of overall self-disclosure in the relationship was predictive of whether the couple stayed together long term
      - These studies suggest that we can have confidence in the validity of the theory
      - Sprecher and Hendrick(2004)
        
        Surveyed heterosexual couples and found a strong positive correlation between the amount of self-disclosure occurring in a relationship and reported satisfaction
- - - - In the first 18 months of a relationship, it is important to establish that both partners have the same attitudes, beliefs and values
      - This lays a foundation for a successful future and promotes self-disclosure
      - Partners often share important beliefs and values
      - When similarities in values aren't shared by both partners, relationships are likely to break down
    - - Two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks
      - Patience vs impatience, nurturing vs being nurtured, organised vs passive
      - This concerns the ability of each partner to meet the other's needs
      - Complementarity is key in the success of the relationship enduring
    - - Our choices are further constrained by social circumstances
      - Therefore, the key benefit of proximity is accessibility
      - Our choices are usually constrained by social mobility
      - We may filter out people of a certain religion, social class, education level because they would be too different to us
      - Geographical location, social class, education level, ethnicity, religion etc.
      - The outcome of all this filtering is homogamy whereby you form a relationship with someone who is socially and culturally similar
      - It is easier to find things in common with these people, making them more attractive
  - - - This theory was produced in 1962 and the authors would've been blown away had they realised that you could filter out any undesirable characteristics with a click of a button
      - Online dating has reduced the importance of certain variables, making it possible to communicate and bond with people who would have not been in the field of availables
      - Online dating has transformed the formation of relationships
      - Online profiles allow us to judge all 3 levels before we have met the partner and render any timeline useless
    - - Psychologists argue that the real value in this filtering process is the fact that it stops people wasting time on relationships that will break down, so they can invest in a positive relationship
      - Filtering stops people making the wrong choice and having to live with the consequences
    - - Research has shown that when partners are in committed relationships they become more similar and develop shared attitudes and beliefs
      - These findings aren't predicted by filter theory
      - The direction of cause and effect is a huge issue in this theory, which assumes that we choose people who already have similar attitudes and beliefs to us, resulting in a successful relationship
    - - Dijkstra and Barelds (2008) found that 760 ppts they surveyed were more concerned with having a partner with the same needs, not complementary ones
    - - This is a methodological flaw which undermines the validity
      - The authors assume that students in relationships over 18 months are more committed and had a deeper relationship
      - Derived from a single study into long (over 18 months) and short term (under 18 months) student relationships
      - This isn't objective and hasn't been replicated experimentally making it incredibly unscientific
- - - - If someone better comes along, I may choose to end my current relationship
      - Alternatively being single may be less stressful
    - - Investment is anything that would be lost if the relationship were to end
      - Intrinsic investments - anything we directly put into a relationship
        
        Energy
        
        Money
        
        Emotion
        
        Self-disclosure
        
        Time
      - Rusbult identified that the first 2 factors aren't enough to explain why people stay in an abusive relationship
      - Extrinsic investments - anything we gained during the relationship
        
        A house
        
        Shred friends
        
        Children
        
        Pets
        
        Shared memories
    - - If I'm happy and getting enough from the relationship, I'll stay
      - I compare my current partner to previous partners and social norms
  - - - Students also noted how committed they felt to the relationship
      - They kept notes about how satisfactory their relationships were, how they compared with possible alternatives and how much they had invested in it
      - Tested her model by asking college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over seven months
      - Results showed that satisfaction, comparison and investment all contributed to commitment and breakup
      - High satisfaction and investment are important in committed relationships
      - The existence of a desirable alternative is influential in deciding to end a relationship
    - - Studies were included from 5 countries
      - A meta analysis of 52 studies and over 11,000 ppts
      - Total support was sought for this theory
      - Satisfaction, alternatives and investment all predicted commitment and the greater the commitment, the longer the relationship lasted
    - - Results showed that for all people, satisfaction was the most important
      - For gay men, investment was less important and for lesbians, quality of alternatives was more important
      - Le and Agnew's analysis also looked at sexuality differences
    - - Asked women living in refuges why they had stayed rather than leaving as soon as the abuse began
      - Women stayed in the relationship despite the abuse because their economic alternatives were poor and when their investment was great
      - Applied the model to abusive relationships
      - The theory can explain maintenance of extremely abusive and damaging relationships
    - - Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out that we invest in the future with a partner
      - The value of this type of investment is not recognised by Rusbult
      - Psychologists have pointed out that Rusbult's model oversimplifies the concept of investment by focusing purely on resources put in or acquired
- - - - PSRs present little risk of criticism, disappointment or rejection - patterns they would have experienced in childhood
    - - They want to avoid the pain and risk of relationships at all costs
    - - Cole and Leets (1998)
        
        115 students completed the CAS and two attachment style questionnaires
        
        Found those with an insecure-resistant attachment style turn to TV characters as a means of satisfying their 'unrealistic and often unmet' relationship needs/demands
      - McClutcheon (2006)
        
        Tested the hypothesis that adults with insecure attachment types would form stronger PSRs than adults with a secure attachment type
        
        299 students completed a CAS and a relationship/attachment questionnaire
        
        No support was found for the hypothesis, although insecurely attached were more likely to condone stalking of celebrities
  - - - Maltby (2006)
        
        Each student completed CAS and a general health questionnaire, measuring depression, anxiety and social dysfunction
        
        Individuals found to be at the first stage had some degree of social dysfunction (loneliness, escapism)
        
        Maltby used a sample of over 300 UK students (male and female)
        
        Those who had reached the second level scored high on anxiety and depression
        
        The absorption-addiction model predicts an association between high CAS scores and poor psychological health
        
        Total support for AA model and suggests the first level isn't harmless
      - Culture
        
        Concerns have only previously existed in Western cultures
        
        New research from the Philippines suggests that PSRs are becoming problematic in Eastern cultures too
        
        Tengo-Pacquing et al (2013) compared data from 600 students who completed CAS from North America and the Philippines
        
        The mean score in the Philippines was 66 (highest ever) with Western recordings ranging from 40-60
        
        The fact that research is pointing to PSRs not being culture bound is an advantage to the theory, as we can apply it nomothetically and it has universality
        
        One evolutionary explanation for PSRs is that we have a genetic instinct to copy successful individuals because it would have given our ancestors increased chance of survival
- - - - Female gametes are less numerous and more costly to produce than male gametes
      - A woman produces one egg a month but a man can produce billions of sperm in one ejaculation
      - A female can only have a limited number offspring whereas men can have an unlimited number
    - - For men, to maximise their reproductive fitness, they need to have as much sex as possible
      - For women, reproductive fitness means finding one man who will give her children and stick around to support them long term
    - - Clark and Hatfield (1989)
        
        Attractive male and female researchers approached strangers on a university campus and asked if they wanted to have sex
        
        None of the females agreed, 75% of the males did
        
        Found sig. differences in male and female motivation for casual sex
        
        This is evidence that men have evolved psychological mechanisms to ensure success in short-term mating
      - Buss and Schmitt (1993)
        
        Found men show a marked decrease in attraction for their casual sex partner following sex
        
        This is allegedly an evolved adaptation which prevents men wasting time with one woman
  - - - Among the same sex
      - Members of one sex compete with each other for members of the opposite sex
      - The victors are able to mate and pass on their genes
      - Whatever traits that lead to success will be passed on
    - - Between the sexes
      - This form of selection involves the preferences of members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities
      - The preferences of one sex therefore determine the areas in which the other sex must compete
    - - Ultimate vs Proximate Causes
        
        In the EEA, for women engaging in casual sex, this would have been a huge risk as they would have been left as single mothers
        
        However, we now have contraception which reduces pregnancy risk and alters female sexual behaviour
        
        Women can now engage in as much casual sex as men without fear of consequences
      - Alpha Bias
        
        Psychologists maximise the difference between the sexes ie. men are viewed as uncaring, irresponsible whilst women are viewed as monogamous, caring and responsible
        
        In reality, we know this is not always the case
      - Buss (1989)
        
        Wanted to explore whether there were universal mate preferences
        
        Results
        
        There were universal mate preferences
        
        Across all cultures, women wanted men who had resources or traits that would translate to resources
        
        Men desired a woman younger than them with an hourglass
        
        The fact that the same preferences existed everywhere, indicate that sexual selection is an innate, natural mechanism and not on affected by nurture
        
        Studied over 11,000 people from 37 cultures
- - - - Walster referred to this notion as realistic choices because each individual is influenced by the chances of having their affection reciprocated
  - - - Found a more significant effect of matching hypothesis in committed couples compared to casual couples (Cavior & Boblett, 1972)
    - - In reality, matching is more complex, for example someone may not be physically attractive but has a lot of money
    - - Murstein 1972, Silverman 1971
      - Photos of random men and women were shown independent judges who rated each picture out of 20
      - When they were put back together, the ratings matched with the correlation being high enough to be statistically significant
    - - Physical attractiveness of women is valued higher by men but that of men is valued less by women
      - This implies that men can compensate for any deficit in physical attractiveness with other qualities more than women
      - Takeuchi (2006) has shown that a gender difference exists in the degree to which physical attractiveness is valued
    - - Individuals continuously tried to arrange dates with people considered more attractive than themselves
      - Proposed that people want to be with someone more physically attractive than they are, to increase the child's genes
      - Carried out research on real online dating sites and no support for realistic choices
    - - Matching is sometimes influenced by third parties such as family or even dating sites
    - - The success of these random matches were assessed using questionnaires during the dance and then 6 months later
      - Before the dance, the more attractive the student, the more attractive they assumed their date would be
      - They believed they had been matched with their date even though they were randomly allocated partners
      - Once ppts had met their matches, they reacted more positively to physically attractive dates and were more likely to try to arrange subsequent dates with them
      - 752 undergrads at University of Minnesota were invited to a dance
      - No evidence for the realistic choices
    - - Found that men and women were more concerned with their partner being trustworthy, supportive and warm over physicality
      - Suggests that physical attractiveness may not be as deterministic as the matching hypothesis sets out
- - - - May result in reconciliation
      - May result in escalation to the next stage
      - Partners begin talking to each other about problems in the relationship
    - - The break up is aired and made public
      - No turning back now
      - Advice and support are sought from people outside the relationship and alliances are created
    - - Think over everything and pretty anxious
      - May withdraw socially whilst trying to come to a decision as to what to do next
      - Within the mind
    - - As a relationship dies, we must create an account of
        
        What it was like
        
        Why it dies
        
        How it came to being
    - - Addresses how each partner prepares themselves for relationships afterwards
      - They can experience personal growth and understanding and develop an idea of what they do and don't want in the future
  - - - Ethics mean studying relationships at this point are problematic as this could increase the likelihood of breakdown
      - Any information we do get is retrospective and unreliable
      - The model doesn't explain what causes the initial breakdown
    - - Kassin
        
        Found men are more likely to break up due to lack of sex, whereas, women are more likely to break up due to stress, unhappiness or incompatibility
      - Argyle
        
        Found women indicate lack of emotional support as a reason for breakdown whereas men cite absence of fun
      - Studies have shown that there are gender differences in why couples break down
    - - Women report more personal growth as a result of breakup than men
      - Men are discouraged from talking about their feelings and emotions which prohibits personal growth
    - - Discovered that the partner that ends the relationship has the better deal in terms of psychological well being
      - The other partner is more likely to report feeling lonely, depressed and unhappy after a breakup than those who initiated it
    - - Traditional models have forced on distress caused by breakups rather than the potential for growth
      - This model predicts that partners learn from their breakup and go on to have a more successful, enduring relationships
    - - Found support for the resurrection process
      - Students surveyed that they had experienced personal growth and greater understanding about what they now looked for in a partner following a breakup
- - - - Another reason why we find self-disclosure so much easier in virtual relationship is that the info we reveal is unlikely to reach others
      - Our virtual partner has no way of outing us to anyone in our real social network so we are free to disclose without fear of further consequences (stranger on a train phenomenon)
      - Psychologists predict that this means relationships can end more quickly once face to face interaction begins as the level of trusts doesn't match the nature of self-disclosure (Boom and Bust Phenomenon)
      - Selective Self-Presentation
        
        On sites such as facebook, we are very careful over what we disclose
        
        Where we have little control over the audience, we have more control over the self-disclosure
      - In online relationships, due to freedom of anonymity, we self-disclose much more rapidly and more freely (hyperpersonal model, Walther 2011)
    - - Biological Basis for Self-Disclosure
        
        Tamir and Mitchell (2012) put ppts through an MRI scanner whilst they were interviewed about themselves or others
        
        They found increased MRI activity in 2 brain centres that are associated with reward (nucleus accumbens, ventral tegmental area) when answering questions about themselves
        
        These findings suggest that SD online may be linked to the biological rewards we experience when we SD
  - - - Absence of gating enables SD to happen faster, more frequently and deeper
      - Absence of gating works by refocusing attention on SD and diverting it away from other features
      - Gating refers to any potential barrier that would get in the way of 2 people forming a relationship face to face (anxiety, physicality, distance)
      - Absence of gating does mean that people are free to create online identities that they would never manage face to face
    - - Generalising is Unscientific
        
        We are nomothetically attempting to apply these theories to any relationship formed online
        
        The nature of virtual relationships varies so vastly from one relationship to another that this is vastly unscientific and any application has limited validity
      - Temporal Validity
        
        The way we interact with people over such apps is completely different to the tech which were inspiration for the theories outlined
        
        Now relationships can start online - some begin anonymously, some begin precisely because the gates haven't been removed
        
        These theories were created before dating apps existed
        
        Some relationships stay online and some only become acquainted online then move to real life instantly
      - McKenna and Bargh (2000)
        
        Found that lonely and socially anxious people felt more able to express their true selves in virtual relationships than in real life
        
        Of the relationships initially online, 70% survived more than 2yrs, a much higher proportion than those formed face to face
        
        Supports the theory that the AoG has promoted SD and improved the quality and durability of the relationship
      - Zhao (2008)
        
        Proposed that the AoG allows individuals to create their own identity offline which can enhance their self-esteem and improve their chances of connecting with others in the real world
      - McKenna (2002)
        
        The other half had their first and their second date face to face
        
        All ppts were then asked how much they liked each other on a 14 point scale
        
        Half met online first for a first date with a follow-up date face to face
        
        Liking was a sig. stronger when the pairs met online first
        
        31 male and 31 female uni students were randomly paired
        
        Supports the idea that AoG promotes SD and therefore increases attention
        
        Carried out an experimental study on AoG