Download relationships - RWS Psychology

UNIT 3 – TOPICS IN
PSYCHOLOGY:
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:
RELATIONSHIPS
SPECIFICATION:
SPECIFICATION CONTENT
THE FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND
BREAKDOWN OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS:
•Theories of the formation, maintenance and
breakdown of romantic relationships: for example,
reward/need satisfaction, social exchange theory
HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR:
•The relationship between sexual selection and
human reproductive behaviour
•Evolutionary explanations of parental investment:
for example, sex differences, parent-offspring conflict
EFFECTS OF EARLY EXPERIENCE AND CULTURE
ON ADULT RELATIONSHIPS:
•The influence of childhood and adolescent
experiences on adult relationships, including parentchild relationships and interaction with peers
•The nature of relationships in different cultures
SPECIFICATION EXPLAINED
Describe and evaluate two theories for each of these three
phases of romantic relationships. (it is important to note that
formation and maintenance are often examined together in one
question, but breakdown tends to be questioned on its own)
•Explain what is meant by sexual selection in the context of
human reproductive behaviour
•Describe and evaluate this relationship, using research studies
relevant to human mating behaviour
•Explain what is meant by parental investment and how this is
linked to at least two areas of human reproductive behaviour.
As sex differences and parental –offspring conflict are given
only as examples, you might wish to consider other areas to
illustrate parental investment.
•Describe and evaluate material for different question
combinations, i.e. both childhood and adolescent experiences
on both parent-child relationships and interaction with peers.
(worth noting that parent-child relationships and interaction
with peers are preceded by the word ‘including’, which
means these can be specifically asked for in an exam question
•Describe and evaluate how relationships differ between
cultures. (draw comparisons between Western and NonWestern cultures)
Formation of romantic relationships:
how do relationships get started?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical attraction –
What makes someone physically attractive? - architectural factors (facial features,
body shape and size) and dynamic factors (how they dress, talk and facial
expressions)
Similar levels of attractiveness – Murstein (1972) ‘matching hypothesis’ look for
someone similar to our level of attractiveness. Less likely to suffer rejection. Studied
99 couples and compared with randomly paired couples. Found that real couples
consistently rated as more alike in levels of attractiveness. Silverman (1971)
supported findings by rating dating couples in bars. McKillip and Riedel (1993) found
pairs of friends also fairly closely matched in levels of physical attractiveness.
Walster et al (1978) ‘matching hypothesis’
SIMILARITY –
Singh and Ho (2000) shared interests important, differences in attitudes can lead to
dislike
Kendel (1978) similar social background, education and socio-economic class
important. Peplau (1976) found similarity of race, class and religion in dating couples
and pairs of friends
Knowledge and understanding:
• Attraction and Similarity
•
•
•
•
Outline two key explanations of attraction
Outline a study on attraction
Describe two supporting studies on similarity
How do attraction and similarity relate to reinforcement/need
satisfaction and SET?
Theories of formation, maintenance and breakdown
of romantic relationships
• REINFORCEMENT AND NEED SATISFACTION
• Conditioning as explanation for relationships
• Operant conditioning – reward us directly by meeting
psychological need for love and sex (reinforcement)
• Classical conditioning – indirectly become associated with
pleasant circumstances- likely to form a relationship
• Associate person with being in good mood or removing
negative mood then we find that person attractive.
• Argyle (1994) forming a relationship can satisfy social needs:
biological needs, dependency, affiliation, dominance,
aggression, sex, self-esteem
• Used to explain formation of relationships – although can apply
to maintenance and breakdown.
Research on reinforcement and need satisfaction
theories
• Cunningham (1988) studied males who watched happy or sad films and
then interacted with a female. More positive interaction came from those
watching happy film
• May and Hamilton (1980) females rate photos of males, while nice or
unpleasant music played – nice music rated males as more attractive
• Griffitt and Veitch (1969) found evaluations of a stranger were positive when
the evaluation was made in a comfortable surrounding.
• Relationships provide different types of rewards- Clark and Mills (1979)
‘exchange relationship’ – less reciprocal way and ‘communal couples’
rewards given as desire to please than the desire for payback.
Evaluations of reinforcement and need satisfaction theories
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lab based research – lacks ecological validity – no reflection of real relationships.
Caspi and Herbener (1990) conducted on real life couples and have supported the
claims
Reductionist – seeing rewards and need satisfaction as being involved in relationship
formation and neglecting other factors
Deterministic and oversimplified – seeing relationship formation as unconscious
process based on learned associations and not allowing for free-will and cognitive
processing
Many non-western cultures do not have regard for receiving rewards. Lott (1994) in
western societies socialised into being attentive to the needs of others such as
husbands and children
Does not account for gender differences – women often focus on needs of others
and males and females find different things rewarding, suggesting that the
explanation is oversimplified.
Aron et al (2005) brain reward system associated with romantic love evolved to drive
out ancestors to focus their courtship energy on specific individuals. Love at first
sight, is a basic mammalian response that our ancestors inherited to speed up the
mating process.
Cate et al (1982) asked 337 individuals to assess their current relationships in terms
of reward level and satisfaction. Results shoed that reward level was superior to all
other factors in determining relationship satisfaction. Only explores receiving of
rewards, Hays (1985) found that we gain satisfaction from giving as well as receiving
Lehr and Geher (2006) studied 24 male and 32 female students to test the
importance of attitude similarity and reciprocal attraction in liking (it is rewarding) –Pp
given a description of a stranger. Inserted in the passage was a similarity to the Pp
but also a statement that the stranger liked or did not like the pp. The DV included
measures of liking for the bogus stranger. Found that similar people liked more and
liking was more likely to be reciprocated.
Knowledge and understanding:
• Which approach suggested the reinforcement
explanation?
• How does operant conditioning and Classical
conditioning explain the formation of
relationships?
• What is need satisfaction? And how does it aid
formation of relationships?
• How can the need satisfaction and
reinforcement theory apply to maintenance and
breakdown of relationships?
• Outline two studies that support and two studies
that oppose the theory
• Summarise 6 evaluative points about the theory.
Formation of relationships
Filter model
 Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) relationships develop through three filters – different factors are important at differe
times.
 called the ‘field of availables’ – the possible people we could have relationships with.
 we filter out potential partners for different reasons at different times, so field of availables is gradually narrowed
down to small field of desirables. (potential partners)
 First filter: social /demographic - similar, live in same area, education similar,
social class similar
Second filter: similarity of attitudes and values – share ideas, beliefs,
communication easy. Any different attitudes are filtered out
Third filter: complementary of emotional needs – r’ship established and how well
they fit together as a couple and meet each others needs
 longitudinal study of student couples been together for more or less than 18m. Asked to complete several
questionnaires over 7month period (had to report on attitude similarity and personality trait with partner. Found that
attitudes similarly was key factor up to 18m. Then after psychological compatibility and ability to meet each others
needs became important. = supporting the model.
EVALUATION:
-Useful way of thinking about the factors that influence the development of a r’ship. A factor sucha as similar attitude
may assume less relevance later on in the same relationship
-Emphasises importance of demographic factors and similarity of attitudes as filters. Sprecher (1998) found couples
who matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop long term
r’shiprs.
-Longitudinal study of couples over 21 years found that those who were similar in educational level and age at start o
their r’ship were more likely to stay together. They also became similar in attitudes as time went on (Gruber-Baldini e
al,1995)
-The stages fail to capture the dynamics and fluency of the nature of relationships, in real life, r’ships flow seamlessl
and some may develop faster or slower than what the filter model suggests.
Formation of relationships
Filter model
 Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
 called the ‘field of availables’ –
 we filter out potential partners for different reasons at different times, so field of availables is gradually
narrowed down to small field of desirables. (potential partners)

First filter: social /demographic Second filter: similarity of attitudes and values –
Third filter: complementary of emotional needs –
 longitudinal study of student couples been together for more or less than 18m. Asked to complete several
questionnaires over 7month period (had to report on attitude similarity and personality trait with partner.
Found that attitudes similarly was key factor up to 18m. Then after psychological compatibility and ability to
meet each others needs became important. = supporting the model.
EVALUATION:
-Useful way of thinking about the factors that influence the development of a r’ship. A factor such as similar
attitudes may assume less relevance later on in the same relationship.
-Emphasises importance of demographic factors and similarity of attitudes as filters. Sprecher (1998) found
couples who matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develo
long term r’shiprs.
-Longitudinal study of couples over 21 years found that those who were similar in educational level and age
at start of their r’ship were more likely to stay together. They also became similar in attitudes as time went on
(Gruber-Baldini et al,1995)
-The stages fail to capture the dynamics and fluency of the nature of relationships, in real life, r’ships flow
seamlessly and some may develop faster or slower than what the filter model suggests.
THEORIES OF FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND BREAKDOWN : economic theory 1
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Theory is used to explain maintenance of r’ships – (can also explain formation and
breakdown)
Why do we choose to stay in the relationship or leave it?
Proposed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959)
Explains r’ships in terms of maximising benefits and minimising costs.
Benefits include rewards/need satisfaction (love, money, status). Costs include time
and effort to maintain r’ship and financial considerations
If both partners feel that the benefits outweigh the costs, then r’ship maintained.
Assumes that people want to maximise benefits of r’ship, while minimising costs.
Person assesses rewards by making two comparisons:
1. COMPARISON LEVEL (CL): compare r’ship with what we expect from a r’ship on
basis of our previous experience, our view of what r’ship should be like and what we
expect to gain from them
2. COMPARISON LEVEL ALTERNATIVE (CL ALT): make comparisons with what
an alternative relationship may offer
R’ships are dynamic and comparisons are continuous process. Might change as you
go through your r’ship.
R’ship maintained if rewards exceed costs and profit level is not exceeded by an
alternative r’ship.
THEORIES OF FORMATION, MAINTENANCE AND BREAKDOWN : economic theory 1
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
•
Proposed a 4-stage model. Setting out how r’ships could be maintained, over time
people develop a predictable and mutually beneficial pattern of exchanges
STAGE
DESCRIPTION
SAMPLING
Rewards and costs assessed in number of r’ships
BARGANING
R’ship costed out and sources of profit and loss
identified
COMMITMENT
R’ship established and maintained by predictable
exchange of rewards
INSTITUTIONALISATION Interactions established and couple settled down
•RESEARCH:
•RUSBULT (1983) pp complete q’naire over 7-m concerning rewards and costs
associated with r’ships. Found SET did not explain early ‘honeymoon’ phase of
r’ship, balance of exchanges ignored. Later on costs compared to personal
satisfaction – theory is relevant to maintenance of r’ships
•Rusbult (1983) cost and reward compared to cost and rewards of potential
alternative r’ships to decide if it should be maintained = supporting SET
•Hatfield (1979) looked at people who felt over or under benefited. Under-benefited
felt angry and deprived and over-benefitted felt guilt. Supports SET but suggests
regardless of whether individuals are benefited, they may not desire to maintain a
r’ship.
Evaluation of SET
• Argyle (1988) criticised methodologies to evaluate SET – as
artificial and little relevance to real life
• Research concentrated on short-term consequences rather
than long-term maintenance
• Applies to people who keep scores. Murstein (1977)
identified score keepers. They were suspicious and
insecure, suggesting the theory only suits r’ships lacking
confidence and mutual trust.
Equity theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
R’ships should be fair
Walster (1978)
Couples keep eye on what putting in and getting out.
Inequity leads to problems
Long term r’ships motivated to repair r;ships
Yum et al (2009)
Canary and Stafford (1992)
Van Yperen and Buunk (1990)
EVALUATION:
Horschchild and Machung (1989)
Sprecher (1986)
Mills and Clark (1982)
Moghaddam et al (1993)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Breakdown (dissolution) of relationships
REASONS:
1. Lack of skills – Duck (1991)
2. Lack of stimulation – Baxter (1994)
3. Maintenance difficulties – Shaver et al
(1995)
Evaluations:
- Extramarital affairs: Boekhout et al (1999)
- Maintenance difficulties: Rohlfing (1995), Holt
and Stone (1988)
- Gender differences
Breakdown (dissolution) of relationships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
REASONS:
1. Lack of skills – Duck (1991) individuals lacking in social skills may be poor at conversation,
poor at indicating interest in other person and unrewarding in their interactions. Others may
perceive them as not being interested in relating, so relationship breaks down before it really
gets going.
2. Lack of stimulation – Baxter (1994) according to SET we look for rewards in our r’ships.
Lack of stimulation such as boredom or belief that r’ship not going anywhere is quoted when
r’ship breaks down. People expect r’ship to change and develop and when they don’t –
justifies end and begin new one (i.e. have an affair)
3. Maintenance difficulties – Shaver et al (1995) r’ship may become strained if partners
cannot see each other enough
Evaluations:
- Extramarital affairs: Boekhout et al (1999) a direct reaction to the perceived lack of skills and
or stimulation in current r’ships. Undergraduates asked to rate various sexual and emotional
reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed r’ship. PP judged sexual reasons
(e.g. sexual excitement, boredom, variety) likely to be used by men whereas for women, lack
of attention, lack of commitment, emotional satisfaction reasons for infidelity.
- Maintenance difficulties: Rohlfing (1995)LDRR and LDF (long distance romantic r’ship /
friendships more common. Found 90% students experienced LF and 70% LDRR, Holt and
Stone (1988) little decrease in r’ship satisfaction as long as lovers are able to reunite
regularly. We live in a mobile society and have now got management strategies in place
- Gender differences:Brehm and Kassin (1996) women more likely to stress unhappiness and
incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, Men upset by sexual withholding. Women desire to
stay friends after r’ship breaks whereas men cut losses and move on. Akert, 1998.
Knowledge and Understanding:
• What are the main reasons for r’ship
breakdown? Include relevant research
studies
• i.e. reasons / models / theory
A model of breakdown – Rollie and Duck, 2006
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Processes that typify relationship breakdown
rather than phases that people pass.
Processes may overlap
PERSONAL: first realisation could be
inequitable relationships.
GOING PUBLIC: justifying to others
--------------------------------------• Commentary:
Tashiro and Frazier (2003) undergrads who
had recently broken up with romantic partner
– reported emotional distress and personal
growth. Supported grave dressing and
resurrection processes.
Rollie and Duck stress importance of
communication in r’ship breakdown.
Paying attention to the things people say,
topics they discuss and ways they talk about
their r’ship gives insight into their stage and
suggests interventions for that stage.
If r’ship in intrapsychic stage then repair
might be re-establishing liking.
BREAKDOWN
INTRAPSYCHIC
PROCESSES
DYADIC PROCESSES
SOCIAL PROCESSES
GRAVE-DRESSING
PROCESSES
RESURRECTION
PROCESSES
Model of breakdown: Lee’s five stage theory
•
•
•
•
•
Lee (1984) proposed 5 stage model of
relationship dissolution –
Dissolution a process occurring over time,
rather than a single event
Lee created theory after conducted a survey of
112 break ups of non-marital romantic r’ships,
finding that the negotiation and exposure stage
were most distressing and emotionally
exhausting. Less intimate r’ships went straight
to termination. Those who went through
lengthy fashion felt attracted to their former
partner after termination and experienced
greater feelings of loss and loneliness.
Argyle and Henderson (1984) asked pp to
consider whether rule violations were to blame
for personal r’ship breakdowns and found
jealously, lack of tolerance, public criticism
most critical. Lee’s explanation not complete as
does not account for these factors
EVALUATION:
Stage of
dissolution
Description
DISSASTIFACTION
Individual becomes
dissatisfied with r’ship
EXPOSURE
Dissatisfaction revealed
to ones’ partner
NEGOTIATION
Discussion occurs over
the nature of the
dissatisfaction
RESOLUTION
Attempts are made to
resolve the
dissatisfaction
TERMINATION
If dissatisfaction is not
resolved, the r’ship
ends
Knowledge and understanding
• Compare and contrast Duck and Lee’s
model of r’ship breakdown
• List three studies of support and three
studies that argue against the models
• AN EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION OF
RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN
• Read the handout and make 10 key points
• Identify AO1 and AO2
• Include research studies.
• You should be able to discuss how the
theory explains the dissolution of
relationships.
Knowledge and Understanding:
revision
• Create a mind-map of
the dissolution of
breakdown.
• Must include AO1 and
AO2 and relevant
research studies.
REVISION:
• Theories of formation, maintenance and
breakdown of romantic relationships:
• On an A3 sheet of paper – map out each
theory (include studies and evaluations)
and draw links to formation, maintenance
and breakdown.
HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE
BEHAVIOUR
• The relationship between sexual selection and
human reproductive behaviour
• Evolutionary explanations of parental
investment e.g. Sex differences, parent
offspring conflict
HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE
BEHAVIOUR
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN
REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR
EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION:
• Cunningham (1986) investigated the
Type of female faces found attractive by males
- Varied the size of female facial features – found
- -Waynforth (2005) masculine features..... .. Supported by Bruce and Young (1998) preference of
symmetrical faces for both men and women.
- Langlois et al (2000)
- Singh (1993) investigated body shape
HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE
BEHAVIOUR: TEACHER NOTES
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN
REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR
EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION:
•
-
-
-
Cunningham (1986) investigated the what types of female faces are found attractive by males. He varied the size of
female facial features including eyes, nose & mouth and found that men were most attracted to features usually
associated with young children – large eyes, small noses and chins. Some features associated with maturity such as
prominent cheekbones and narrow cheeks were also found attractive as were dilated pupils and wide smiles.
-Waynforth (2005) masculine features including square jaw, ridged eyebrows, small eyes and symmetrical face were
preferred by women especially those seeking short term r’ship. Supported by Bruce and Young (1998) preference of
symmetrical faces for both men and women.
Langlois et al (2000) carried out meta analysis of 919 studies into PA found agreement within cultures as who
attractive and who not. Some agreement between cultures. Langlois et al found preference for attractive faces is
shown in very early childhood and emerged strongly by time child is 26m old.
Singh (1993) investigated body shape across cultures. Body ratio’s i.e. Female waist-hip ratio of 0.7 (hour-glass
shape more preferred). Males WHR preferred of 0.85 which is wide shoulders and narrow hips.
The relationship between sexual selection and human
reproductive behaviour
• Darwin suggested that species evolve through ‘sexual selection’ – a
view that competition for mates between individuals of the same
sex affects the evolution of certain traits
• Idea of natural selection was that animals should end up with
physical and behavioural characteristics that allow them to
perform well in competition with their rivals
• The peacock tail does not help it fly any faster or better. The
elaborate plumage makes him more conspicuous to predators?
However, the Peahen is attracted to the bigger plumage.
Therefore, it is female choice and certain features are what make
them attractive to members of opposite sex
The relationship between sexual selection and human
reproductive behaviour
• Males produce a lot of small, high mobile sperm and can fertilise many females
at little cost to reproductive potential.
• They cannot be sure of paternity so, natural selection favours male behaviours
maximising number of potential pregnancies
• This results in ‘intrasexual’ competition between males and polygamy – a
mating pattern in which one individual mates with more than one individual of
the opposite sex. Males seek females displaying signs of fertility such as health,
youth and childbearing hips
• A female produces few large eggs. Each one representing a sizeable
reproductive investment. Natural selection favours female behaviours
maximising changes of each potential reproduction being successful, i.e. Mate
selection, monogamy and high parental investment. Females seek males
displaying genetic fitness, such as strength, status and resources. Females
indulge in ‘intersexual’ competition – choose males who are available
Qualities sought in personal dating adverts
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MALE:
I'll love to turn you on Age 29 Relationship Status Single Hometown Oxford
I'm 28, medium build, brown hair. Enjoy keeping myself fit at the gym, I like playing my guitar and socalizing where
the fit takes me. I'm open minded and looking for new interests to try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FEMALE:
Adjectives to describe me - bright & aware, witty, cheeky, sensitive, thoughtful, kind and trustworthy. I am shy but
outgoing when I need to be, which in this world is most of the time! ( my friends would think this statement highly
amusing!). I don't follow fashion but am stylish in a sometimes quirky way and sometimes just very classical. I
would know how to dress for any occasion and wouldn't embarrass you although I can't promise not to drag you
around a few shops! Someone once said to me that I was like the cherry on top of their cake - making his world
complete...I would prefer to be half the cake mixture. I am looking for a partner but we will only know when we
meet whether there is any chemistry to take it past friendship. Looking for someone who is warm, amusing,
perceptive, calm and thoughtful. You like to take pride in your appearance. Tall and dark is a bonus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MALE:
Hi I am a very friendly and easy going sort of person, who appreciates people with a good outlook on life. I am
having good times and would like to share with someone special. I enjoy travelling, eating out and watching films
with a good bottle of wine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FEMALE:
I am outgoing, very attractive and young at heart. I like to have lots of fun and get along with all people from all
walks of life. I enjoy meeting new people. I am looking for a partner that will amuse me, look after me. Someone
who is ambitious and values their work. I would like to meet someone who wants to build a home but at the same
time get out and about without being stuck in the routines of life. Come and join me for some good food – I enjoy
cooking and I am good. Just want to meet someone who will value me and be able to show me the good qualities
of life.
PARTNER SELECTION:
• Partner preferences examined by looking at qualities sought
in personal adverts or dating websites.
• Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) personal adverts
• Buss (1989) tested pp from 37 cultures
• Davis (1990) content analysis
• Singh (1993) males preference
• Clark and Hatfield (1989) males more promiscuous
• Boone (1986) females prefer older males
• Penton-Voak et al (2001) facial symmetry
• Bailey and Zucker (1995) partner preference
for homosexual people
(fill in the information on the worksheet)
DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR
MALE STRATEGIES
•Courtship rituals –
Miller (1997)
•Size
•Sperm competition
•Jealousy – Buss (1993)
•Sneak copulationCerda-Flores (1999)
FEMALE STRATEGIES
•The sexy sons
hypothesis
•The handicap
hypothesis-Zahavi
(1975)
evaluations
• Partridge (1980) females can improve reproductive
success of their children by selecting good genes in
their partners
• Can’t generalise findings of animal studies on to
humans
• Evidence from animal kingdom of sperm
competition. Dewsbury (1984) rats mating system
• Evolution explains male and female behaviour in
terms related to maximising reproductive potential.
Same behaviours can be explained in other ways
i.e. female choosiness and male promiscuity by
gender role socialisation
Exam style question:
• Critically consider the relationship
between sexual selection and human
reproductive behaviour (25 marks)
• You will only have 30 minutes to answer
this question in the exam.
Evolutionary Explanations of Parental investment: ‘any investment by
the parent in an individual offspring that increases the offspring chance of surviving
(reproductive success) at the cost of parents ability to invest in other offspring’
SEX DIFFERENCES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Males investment smaller than females
Male can’t be sure of paternity and uses best strategy to
impregnate as many females as possible
Female investment is larger – bears the cost of pregnancy
and indulge in behaviours increasing the survival chances of
her children
OTHER EXPLANATIONS OF PARENTAL INVESTMENT:
Paternal certainty
Order of gamete release
Monogamy
Parental certainty
RESEARCH:
Gross and Shine (1981)
Krebs and Davies (1981)
Brase (2006)
EVALUATION:
Evolutionary Explanations of parental
investment
Parent-offspring conflict
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The behaviour of offspring can influence parental
investment.
Parents have equal investment in all offspring.
The amount invested decreases as more are born and
as individual gets older and can fend for itself
Individual offspring will try to get parents to invest
more in them at the expense of other offspring –
creating sibling rivalry
Parent-offspring rivalry can occur before birth with a
mother experiencing high BP due to foetus secreting
hormones to gain more nutrition
Children use various strategies to manipulate parents
into allocating resources i.e. Smiling, crying and
regression. Acted as solitary or at expense of siblings
needs
Older parents will tolerate demand of young infants as
they are not having any more children – centre around
existing ones.
Parental-offspring conflict:
• RESEARCH STUDIES AND
EVALUATIONS
• READ THE HANDOUTS AND SUM UP
THE KEY STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS
EFFECTS OF EARLY EXPERIENCE & CULTURE ON
ADULT RELATIONSHIPS
• THE INFLUENCE OF CHILDHOOD AND
ADOLESCENT EXPERIENCES ON ADULT
RELATIONSHIPS, INCLUDING PARENT
CHILD RELATIONSHIPS & INTERACTION
WITH PEERS
• THE NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN
DIFFERENT CULTURES
Influence of early childhood and adolescents on adult relationships
• CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES:
Parent-child relationships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bowlby (1969) argued that early relationships with our primary caregivers provide the basis for
later adult relationships – ‘continuity hypothesis’
According to attachment theory, young children develop an internal working model from their
first relationship with their primary carer.
Consists of view that they are loveable, or people not to be trusted
Ainsworth and Bell (1971) strange situation (type A, B,C)
Hazan and Shaver (1987) love quiz – early attachment patterns affect adult romantic
relationships: securely attached had happy, lasting relationships in adulthood
Simpson et al (2007) longitudinal study on individuals from childhood into their 20’s. securely
attached were more socially competent, developed secure friendships and had more positive
emotional experiences
McCarthy (1999) women who had insecure-avoidant att. Did not have successful later romantic
relationships. Insecure-av had poor friendships.
EVALUATIONS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Steele et al (1998) contradicted the continuity hypothesis
Attachment types do not appear to be fixed. Hamilton (1994)
Rutter et al (1999)
Levitt (1991)
Temperament hypothesis
Causal link
Influence of early childhood and adolescents on adult relationships
• CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interaction with peers
Qualter and Munn (2005) children learn from their experiences with other children
Nangle et al (2003) close friendships training ground for important adult relationships
Peer r’ships are horizontal r’ships - individuals of equal status
RESEARCH STUDIES:
Hartup (1993) popular children with many friends were socially able at forming
r’ships
Bagwell et al (1996) poor-quality friendships linked with low self-esteem
Connelly and Goldberg (1999) level of intimacy in peer relationships laid the
foundation for the degree of intimacy in young adult relationships
EVALUATION:
Hartup (1993) difficult to calculate the impact of children’s peer r'ships on adult
r’ships – need to take into account who friends are and the quality of f’ship
Wood et al (2002) subtle but important difference between way individs relate to one
another (because of their attachment type) and interaction of two different
attachment styles
Furman (1999) altruism
Leaper (1994) Gender differences
Influence of early childhood and adolescents on
adult relationships
• ADOLESCENT EXPERIENCES:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Parent-child relationships
Lerner and Sternberg (2004)
Eriksons (1968) theory of psychosocial development
Post-divorce parental relationships
Mother-daughter relationships
Father-son relationships
• Interaction with peers
Frey and Rothlisberger (1996)
Blos (1967)
Peers become attachment figures who provide a secure base for independent
exploration in the adult world
•
•
•
Research evidence
Negative side of adolescent r’ships
Evaluations
The nature of relationships in different cultures
• Individualistic cultures
• Collectivist cultures
marriage
Individualistic
cultures
Collectivist
cultures
divorce
The nature of relationships in different cultures
Arranged marriages
• Iwao (1993) one in four marriages in Japan was arranged
• Batabayal (2001) – processes involved in arranged marriages
• Arranged marriages in collectivist cultures:
- Umadevi et al (1992)
- Gupta and Singh (1982)
- However, Xioahe and Whytle (1990)
• Arranged marriages in individualistic cultures:
- Zaidi and Shuraydi (2002)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jankowiak et al (1992) found evidence of romantic love across cultures –
- Marrying for love: Levine et al (1995) collectivist cultures (Thailand, India and
Pakistan) – students willing to compromise and marry someone they did not
love
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• EVALUATIONS:
Issue of divorce
• Stigma attached. Betzig (1989)
• Huang (2005): rapid urbanization,
education/employment, loosening of social
control over marriage, increased leniency
in divorce laws, importance of romantic
love, growth of individualism.
• EVALUATIONS: