SLEEP - Castlebrae



7419975-171450Love00LoveHIGHER REVISION Social Behaviour: Theories, Studies and Applications1.1 Evolutionary theoryTrivers (1972), Buss (1989)Filter theoryKerckhoff & Davies (1962)Social Exchange TheoryThibault & Kelley (1959)Investment modelRusbult (2011)-8966201341755Key Points00Key PointsEvolutionary or sociobiological theories claim that men and women are attracted to different characteristics in each other:?men are attracted to appearancewomen are attracted to resources (money)Both men and women seek to find the best mate who will maximise their reproductive success.Because a man's input in sexual reproduction is so minimal it is in his best interest to be as promiscuous as possible to spread his chances of making as many women as possible pregnant, and thereby spreading the gene pool.For women, the opposite is true; because human babies have such a long incubation period, women need to seek out the perfect mate who will provide resources for her and her children.Research in this area does seem to conclude that men prefer youth and beauty, and evolutionary psychologists would suggest that this is because these are good indicators of fertility in women. Research also concludes that women select a partner who is older, and has a more stable career and money-earning potential. Kerckhoff and Davis propose that people develop relationships by applying a series of filters to narrow down the pool of available candidates, the 'field of availables'.?Social demography: we are more likely to meet people who are physically close and share demographic characteristics. Our most frequent interactions are with people who are nearby. The benefit of proximity is accessibility —it does not require much effort to meet people who live in the same area, go to the same school etc. Our choices are also limited by our social class. The outcome of this is?homogamy?—you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar.?Similarity in attitudes: this is a factor which depends on the extent to which two people share views and beliefs. If you do share views and beliefs, it is easier to communicate which will help a relationship to form. Kerckhoff and Davis found that this filter was important at the beginning of a relationship and a good predictor of whether a relationship is likely to last. Donn Byrne suggests that similarity is the law of attraction. Complementarity, refers to how well two people complement each other and meet each other's needs. Two partners complement each other when one partner has a trait that the other lacks — the two halves then make a whole e.g. to make people laugh/the need to laugh. The key terms in social exchange theory (SET) are reward, cost, outcome and comparison. These terms sound like economic ones, but the gains are emotional.Rewards-costs= outcome/ profitThibaut and Kelley also proposed that everyone has a comparison level (CL). A comparison level is an individual's perceptions about the amount of rewards and costs they are likely to obtain in a social relationship.Your comparison level is closely linked to your self-esteem: if you have a good opinion of yourself then your comparison level is likely to be high; conversely, if you have a low opinion of yourself and self-esteem, your comparison level will probably be low too.Thibaut and Kelley claim that everyone also has an alternative comparison level (ACL), which is the amount of rewards, and costs they're likely to obtain in an alternative relationship.Rusbult proposed that there are three major factors that maintain commitment:?satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives, and?investment size.Rusbult's theory differs from SET by proposing that the most important factor in maintaining commitment is?investment?— it is this that make couples stay together in situations where costs outweigh rewards. Investment refers to those resources that couples will lose if they leave the relationships. These resources can be material, such as a house, or possessions, or immaterial, such as happy memories.?Rusbult proposed that investment falls into two categories: Extrinsic investment?— what we put into relationships directly, e.g. effort, possessions, moneyIntrinsic investment?— what we bring to the relationship indirectly, like children, shared memories, friends.Rusbult also identified factors that help maintain relationships, such as:?Accommodation?— acting in ways that promotes relationships, such as responding constructively to the destructive behaviours of your partner.Willingness to sacrifice?— putting your partner's interests before your ownForgiveness?— willingness to forgive your partner's mistakesPositive illusions?— being positive about your partner — even when this is unrealistic.Ridiculing alternatives?— minimising the advantages of being with someone else, by 'putting them down'.1.1 Evolutionary theoryTrivers (1972), Buss (1989)Filter theoryKerckhoff & Davies (1962)Social Exchange TheoryThibault & Kelley (1959)Investment modelRusbult (2011)-11499851645920Strengths & weaknesses00Strengths & weaknessesStrengths: the theory is supported by research evidence e.g. Buss (1989) surveyed over 10,000 people in 33 countries and found that, in general, men preferred women who were younger than themselves, and women preferred men who were older than themselves.Clark and Hatfield (1989) found evidence for female choosiness. Male and female psychology students approached students at the university with the question: ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’. Not a single female agreed to the request, whereas 75% of males did. Weaknesses: this theory only applies to heterosexual couples so doesn't cover the scope and diversity of human relationships.There is little evidence of the link between physical attractiveness and child-bearing. potential;It is a reductionist viewpoint — this theory assumes that all behaviour can be reduced to natural responses.Strengths: this has some research support - Byrne found that similarity was a key factor in initial attraction, as filter theory predicts. Kerkhoff and Davis' own study into the importance of complementarity also supports filter theory. Sprecher (2001) found that couples matched in physical attractiveness, social background, and interests were more likely to develop a long-term relationship.Weaknesses:Levinger suggests many studies have failed to replicate the original findings of filter theory, probably due to social change over time. Online dating has made it easier for people to find a partner outside the usual demographic limits of culture, social class or proximity.?The theory is based on studies that use self-report data, which can be unreliable due to social desirability.Filter theory suggest that people are attracted to each other because they are similar. However, Anderson et al. found that cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon they called emotional convergence.?The theory does not account for long-distance relationships, such as those found in the military.Strengths: SET is supported by studies, such as Sprecher (2001) and Floyd et al. (1994), where people appear to base their evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs, just as SET suggests.The theory has useful real-life applications, such as Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT), where partners are trained to increase the rewards they give their partners, and reduce the costs.Weaknesses:Research evidence for SET is limited.SET concepts are difficult to define (how would you operationalise 'commitment'. If they are difficult to define, they are difficult to measure, which makes this theory unscientific.The theory assumes that romantic partners keep a daily score of costs and rewards, which is unlikely.Other research findings suggest that it is the perceived fairness of relationships, rather than a balance of costs and rewards, that keep romantic partners happy (e.g. Clark and Mills, 2011).Strengths: There are numerous studies which support the model, e.g. Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment did contribute to commitment.Rusbult provides an explanation for why people stay in abusive relationships. It is because of the investment they have made, as found by Rusbult and Maltz. This means that the investment model can account for a wider range of relationships than other models, such as the Social Exchange Theory.Weaknesses:Cause and effect relationships are difficult to establish (does investment cause commitment, or is there just a relationship between the two?), as many studies into the model are correlational.A problem with questionnaires is the social desirability bias. Questionnaires were used a lot to study the Investment Model, so this means that the results may not be valid.5686425-314325Virtual relationships in Social Media1.1 GatingMcKenna & Bargh (1999)Reduced cues theorySpoull & Kiesler (1986)Hyperpersonal theoryWalther (1996, 2011)-8966201341755Key Points00Key PointsMcKenna and Bargh (1999) Absence of gatesA gate in this context, is any obstacle to the formation of a relationship. FtF interaction is said to be gated because it involves many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship. Examples include physical unattractiveness, a stammer or social anxiety.McKenna and Bargh (1999) argue that the huge advantage of CMC is the absence of gating. This means that the relationship can develop to a point where self-disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper. This absence of gating allows an online relationship to ‘get off the ground’ in a way that is less likely to happen in an FtF situation.Absence of gating works by refocussing attention on self-disclosure and away from what might be considered superficial and distracting features. In online relationships people are more interested in what you tell them rather than what you look and sound like.Sproull and Kiesler (1986)suggest that CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions. What cues are reduced in CMC?These include non-verbal cues such as our physical appearance. CMC particularly lack cues to our emotional state, such as our facial expressions and tone of voice. DeindividuationWithout some of these cues this can lead to deindividuated (like Zimbardo’s prison guards) because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity, which in turn then encourages disinhibition in relating to others. Because people feel deindividuated, virtual relationships are more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication. Reluctance to self-discloseThe upshot of this is a reluctance to disclose and reveal any meaning information about yourself. You are unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, or reveal your innermost feelings to them.Walther (1996, 2011) argues that online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure that FtF ones. This is because on CMC relationships can develop quickly as disclosure happens earlier, and once established they are more intense and intimate. It also means that they can end more quickly because of the high excitement level of interactions is not matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners.Cooper and Sportolari (1997) called this the boom and bust phenomenon.More time to manipulateAccording to the hyperpersonal model, a key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is that the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than they would in an FtF situation. Walther calls this selective self-presentation.People online have more control over what they disclose and what cues to send. This means it’s much easier to manipulate self-disclosure to promote intimacy in CMC relationships, by self-presenting in a positive and idealised way.1.1 GatingMcKenna & Bargh (1999)Reduced cues theorySpoull & Kiesler (1986)Hyperpersonal theoryWalther (1996, 2011)-12065003232150Strengths & weaknesses00Strengths & weaknessesStrengths: Research supportMcKenna and Bargh (2000) looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people. They found that such people were to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations. Of the romantic relationships that initially formed online, 70% survived more than 2 years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed in the offline world.Weaknesses: Relationships are Multimodal Walther (2011) argues that any theory seeking to explain CMC, including the role of self-disclosure, needs to accommodate the fact that our relationships are generally conducted online and offline through many different types of media. It is very rarely a straightforward matter of ‘either/or’. This is in fact the central characteristic of many modern relationships. What we choose to disclose in our online relationships will inevitably be influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa.Strengths: There does seem to be lots of anecdotal evidence that people are more aggressive online when they feel anonymous. For example death threats were made to Caroline Criardo-Perez when she campaigned to have Jane Austen on the Bank of England’s ?10 note. Weaknesses:Cues are different rather than absent.The theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. Walther and Tidwell (1995) point out that people in online interaction use other cues such as the style and the timing of the message. For example – taking the time to reply to an online message is interpreted as more of an intimate act rather than an immediate response. But not too long, with a short reply, otherwise that might be seen as a snub. There are subtle nuances which can be used in CMC that are similar to FtF relationships. Acrostics such LOL, emoticons and emojis, are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions, tone of voice, portraying emotions such as dislike and illness.Strengths: Research Support Whitty and Joinson (2009) found when researching a number of online discussions that the questions tended to be very direct, probing and sometimes intimate. These kinds of questions would never have been asked in a FtF meeting as it would be seen as ‘going too far’. FtF discussion tends to be ‘small talk’. It was also found that people had no issue in answering the personal questions online and were direct and to the point. Bargh (2002) points out that this anonymity is rather like the strangers on the train effect in FtF relationships. When you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your actions and behaviour. So you may well disclose more about yourself to a stranger than to even your most intimate partner. Weaknesses:It depends on the forum: people disclose more in online areas they feel are more private (Facebook friends) and disclose less on platforms that collect data. This means that theories are only valid if they consider all CMC. Relationships are Multi modal: Relationships are usually online and offline (multimodal) which influences online interactions. Current theories underestimate this complexity. 56197505080Love00LoveParasocial Relationships 1.1 Levels of parasocial relationshipsMcCutcheon (2002)The Absorption-Addiction modelMcCutcheon (2002)Attachment theoryAinsworth (1979)-8966201341755Key Points00Key PointsRelationships with celebrities are usually one-sided. The target individual is unaware of the existence of the fan. (Horton and Wohl, 1956). These relationships may be appealing because they make few demands, and the individual does not run the risk of criticism or rejection as might be the case in a real relationship. Schiappa (2007) PSRs are more likely if……The television celebrity is seen as attractive.The celebrity is similar in some way to the viewer.The celebrity acted in a believable way.We perceive them as realThe viewer is femaleThe viewer is lonely and shyDerrick et al (2008) compared self-esteem, identification with the PSR and the perceived discrepancies between the ideal and actual self. He found that: Those with low self-esteem saw their favourite celebrity as being very similar to their ideal selves. Those with high self-esteem see their favourite celebrity as being similar to their actual selves.The Celebrity Attitude Scale (McCutcheon 2002) consists of 23 items which are scored on a Likert scale. Strength is measured by: Entertainment-social, Intense–personal and Borderline pathological.McCutcheon (2002) proposed that parasocial relationships form due to deficiencies in people’s lives. They look to the relationship to escape from reality, perhaps due to traumatic events, or to fill the gap left by a real-life attachment ending. They may have a weak sense of self-identity and also lack fulfilment in their everyday relationships.A parasocial relationship allows them to ‘escape from reality’, or a way of finding fulfilment that they can’t achieve in their actual relationships. This is linked to the three levels.Someone who initially has an entertainment-social orientation to a certain celebrity may be triggered into more intense involvement by some personal crisis or stressful life event.Absorption-Addiction Model has two components.Absorption –refers to behaviour designed to make the person feel closer to the celebrity. This could be anything from researching facts about them, both their personal life and their career, to repeatedly experiencing their work, playing their music or buying tickets to see them live, or buying their merchandise to strengthen the apparent relationship. Addiction – as with other addictions, this refers to the escalation of behaviour to sustain and strengthen the relationship. The person starts to believe that they ‘need’ the celebrity and behaviours become more extreme, and more delusional. Stalking is a severe example of this behaviour.An attachment pattern is established in early childhood and continues to function as a working model for relationships in adulthood.Attachment type influences how people meet their needs. When there is a secure attachment pattern, a person is confident and self-possessed and is able to easily interact with others, meeting both their own and another’s needs. ?However, when there is an anxious or avoidant attachment pattern, and a person picks a partner who fits with that maladaptive pattern, he or she will most likely be choosing someone who isn’t the ideal choice to make him or her happy.This theory proposes insecure attachment leads to an increased interest in celebrities. PSRs make no demands, and do not involve criticism or the risk of rejection.Anxious-ambivalentMost likely to form PSRs.They have concern that others will not reciprocate their desire for intimacy. They turn to TV characters to satisfy their “unrealistic and often unmet relational needs”.Anxious-avoidantLeast likely.They find it difficult to develop relationships and therefore are very unlikely to seek them from real or fictional people.Secure attachmentNot likely.They often have satisfactory real-life relationships and do not seek an additional relationship with a celebrity.5691505-228600Love00LoveEvaluation of theories on Parasocial Relationships 1.1 Levels of parasocial relationshipsMcCutcheon (2002)The Absorption-Addiction modelMcCutcheon (2002)Attachment theoryAinsworth (1979)-11563352915285Strengths & weaknesses00Strengths & weaknessesStrengths: Research support: McCutcheon (2003) out of 600 participants:20% fell into ‘Entertainment-social’ 10% ‘Intense-personal’1% ‘Borderline pathological’.Weaknesses: Methodological issuesMost research on parasocial relationships rely on self-report which is open to social desirability bias. Most studies are also correlational, e.g. the conclusion that intense-personal parasocial relationships causes young women to have poor body image may be wrong. It may that poor body image drives celebrity worship. Strengths: Research support: Maltby et al (2005) investigated the link between celebrity worship and body image in male and females aged 14-16 years. Of particular interest were females reporting an intense-personal parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired.The researchers found that female adolescents tended to have poor body image, and speculated that this link maybe be a precursor to the development of eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa.Maltby et al (2003) also made links with levels of parasocial relationships and certain personality characteristics. Extraverts with Entertainment–socialNeurotic with Intense-personalPsychotic with Borderline pathological. Weaknesses:The model has been criticised for being a good description of absorbed and addicted people, but not an explanation of why they became like that. Unlike attachment theory, it does not explain how these chacteristics develop. Strengths: Cultural similarities:Attachment styles may be universal and not culturally specific. Schmid and Klimmt (2011) report that a tendency for some people to form a parasocial relationship with Harry Potter, an entirely fictional character, is not culturally specific. Using an online questionnaire methodology they found similar levels of parasocial attachments to Harry Potter in an Individualistic culture (Germany) and a Collectivist culture (Mexico).Weaknesses:Research against: McCutcheon (2006) measured the attachment styles and celebrity related attitudes Sample: 299 students (age 16-42)Procedure: they used the Celebrity Attitude Scale and a Stalking Scale.Adult attachment was measured using a relationship questionnaire.Childhood attachment type was measured through the use of a parental bonding scale based on their recall of the relationship with their parents before the age of 16.Results:Adults with insecure attachment are no more likely to become attached to celebrities than those with a secure adult attachment type.Methodological issuesMost research on parasocial relationships relies on self-report which is open to social desirability bias. Most studies are also correlational, so the conclusion that intense-personal parasocial relationships causes young women to have poor body image may be wrong. It may that poor body image drives celebrity worship. 5619750-35242501.2 Key studies1.1 The Computer Dance studyWalster et al (1966)Identity construction on facebookZhao, Grasmuck and Martin (2008)-11563352915285Strengths & weaknesses00Strengths & weaknessesAim: to see whether an individual will choose a partner of approximately the same social desirability and, after going out on a date with this person, will express greatest liking for a partner of approximately the same social desirability.Method/Procedure:A “computer dance” was set up during freshers week at an American University. When students purchased their tickets they were a) rated by a panel of older students in terms of physical attractiveness and b) asked to fill in a questionnaire about themselves, ostensibly to match them with a similar date for the dance; in fact; matching was done randomly. Two days later, each student was assigned a date for the dance. In total, 332 couples were involved. During the dance the students were asked to rate their dates. After the dance (four to six months later), all students were contacted and asked if they had continued to see their dates.Results:The overriding factor in whether the dates liked each other was physical attractiveness rather than matching; in other words, students rated their partners more highly if they were physically attractive and the degree of similarity between partners (as measured by the questionnaire) showed no relation to liking. Physical attractiveness was also the main factor in whether an individual continued dating their partner.Conclusion: the findings appear to support the claims of evolutionary theory rather than the filter theory.Evaluation:Sample biasThe participants in the study were students who were less likely to be interested in long-term relationships and thus their criteria might not reflect those that operate in other relationships.Ecological validityHow realistic was the study? In real life people usually have some choice about whom they date. In another study (Walster and Walster, 1969), participants were given some choice (in terms of physical attractiveness) and allowed to meet beforehand. In this case, matching was apparent. Aim:?to investigate identity construction on Facebook.Method/procedure:?The Facebook accounts of 63 students of differing genders and ethnicities were downloaded. The contents were analysed using content analysis, which focused on:?the user's profile, contact information, social networks, self-description.Results:?Only 15 of the 63 participant completely blocked their accounts to non-'Friends, indicating that the majority of users saw Facebook as a way of getting to know others online. Most participants were also happy to let the public see a wide range of photos of themselves in the context of their friends, having fun, being affectionate and socialising. Zhao et al. call this 'self as social actor', projecting an image of themselves as a desirable social entity. The second 'self' is the cultural self, as shown in the interests and preferences section of their profile.?The least populated section of the profiles were the 'About Me' section, with only one or two short sentences being the norm. Zhao et al. concluded from these findings that, on Facebook, people prefer to 'show' rather than 'tell' information about themselves.Conclusions:?Zhao?et al.?concluded that identities created on Facebook are different from the identities created offline. The 'Facebook selves' were highly socially desirable, which the user is not in real life. The anonymity of Facebook makes people more realistic and honest in how they present themselves, but the absence of gating enables users to 'stretch the truth' to make themselves appear more socially desirable. They are creating an online identity which is enhances their overall self-image and increases the quality of their face-to-face, as well as their online, relationships.Evaluation:?Sample bias The Facebook accounts of students from only one university were looked at, so the findings may not generalise to other universities, or other settings. Students are not typical of the general population, so the results may not generalise to other types of people.?Method Content analysis has strengths and weaknesses. It is a reliable way to analyse qualitative data as the coding units applied to the qualitative data are not open to interpretation and so are applied in the same way over time and with different researchers. The coding of descriptive data allows a statistical analysis to be conducted if required as there is usually quantitative data. However, cause and effect relationships cannot be established as it merely describes the data and cannot extract any deeper meaning or explanation for the data patterns arising. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download