PAPER THREE: RELATIONSHIPS
TOPIC: Social exchange theory (theory)
A01:
- Thibault & Kelley, behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of
exchange
- Minimax principle = minimise losses, maximise gains
- Judge our satisfaction with a relationships in terms of the profit its yields (defined as
the rewards minus the costs)
- For a relationship to be maintained, individuals must feel as though they are
receiving more than they are putting in
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT:
1. Sampling
- Partners consider the costs and benefits through interactions and compare it to other
relationships
2. Bargaining
- Partners exchange costs and benefits, negotiate and identify what is most profitable
3. Commitment
- Relationship is stable and maintained by a predictable exchange of rewards
4. Institutionalisation
- Partners are settled and have established norms in terms of rewards and costs
COMPARISON LEVELS:
- Comparison level = amount of reward that you believe you deserve, depends on our
experiences of previous relationships
- Influenced by social and cultural norms
- Linked to self-esteem
- Comparison level of alternatives = whether we believe we could gain greater
rewards/fewer costs from another relationship or from being on our own
- We will stay in our relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding than
alternatives
- Duck, if the costs outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more
attractive
A03:
X - Concepts are hard to quantify
Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in order to measure them but
psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define as they vary from one person to
another
Inability to quantify the concepts makes it difficult to produce valid research support
X - Assumes all relationships are exchange based
Clark & Mills, exchange relationships may involve profit but communal relationships involve
the giving and receiving of rewards without thinking of profit
Suggests SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships
X - Direction of effect
Assumed that dissatisfaction occurs where costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem
more attractive
,Miller, people who said they were in a committed relationship spent less time looking at
images of attractive people (good predictor of the relationship continuing at the 2 month
follow up)
SET may have the wrong direction of cause and effect, rather than lack of profit leading to
dissatisfaction it can be argued that we don’t consider the profit until after we become
dissatisfied
X - Artificial tasks & artificial conditions
Common procedure involves 2 strangers working together on a game-playing scenario in
which rewards/costs are distributed
Know nothing about each other and their ‘relationship’ depends on the task they are
performing together
Suggests SET can’t account for the properties in a relationship that emerge over time (trust)
, PAPER THREE: RELATIONSHIPS
TOPIC: Physical attractiveness (attraction)
A01:
FACIAL SYMMETRY:
- Shackleford & Larsen, people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- Signal of genetic fitness
NEOTENOUS FEATURES:
- Widely separated and large eyes
- Delicate chin
- Small nose
- Big lips
- Rounder face shape
- Trigger a protective/caring instinct
- Found to contribute to female attractiveness
HALO EFFECT:
- Physical attractiveness may matter as we have preconceived ideas about the
personality traits attractive people must have
- Dion et al, physically attractive people are rated as kind, strong, sociable and
successful compared to unattractive people
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS:
- Walster et al, people choose romantic partners who are of a similar physical
attractiveness
- To do this, we make a realistic judgement about our own ‘value’ to a partner
- Narrows the range of available people
- Reduces the likelihood of rejection
A03:
✓ - There is cultural consistency in what is considered attractive
Cunningham et al, female features of large eyes/small nose/high eyebrows were rated as
highly attractive by white/hispanic/asian males
People judged as physically attractive also stereotyped to be more trustworthy, mature,
friendly
Suggests physical attractiveness isn’t culturally independent and may have evolutionary
roots
✓ - Research support for the halo effect
Palmer & Peterson, physical attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable than
unattractive people
Persisted even when the p’s knew that these people had no particular expertise
Shows the halo effect can be observed in real life situations
X - Online dating research has not supported its assumptions
Tayler et al, online dates sought dates with partners who were more attractive than
themselves and did not consider their own level attractiveness
Suggests the matching hypothesis does not consider different social influences
X - Not everyone considers physical attractiveness important
TOPIC: Social exchange theory (theory)
A01:
- Thibault & Kelley, behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of
exchange
- Minimax principle = minimise losses, maximise gains
- Judge our satisfaction with a relationships in terms of the profit its yields (defined as
the rewards minus the costs)
- For a relationship to be maintained, individuals must feel as though they are
receiving more than they are putting in
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT:
1. Sampling
- Partners consider the costs and benefits through interactions and compare it to other
relationships
2. Bargaining
- Partners exchange costs and benefits, negotiate and identify what is most profitable
3. Commitment
- Relationship is stable and maintained by a predictable exchange of rewards
4. Institutionalisation
- Partners are settled and have established norms in terms of rewards and costs
COMPARISON LEVELS:
- Comparison level = amount of reward that you believe you deserve, depends on our
experiences of previous relationships
- Influenced by social and cultural norms
- Linked to self-esteem
- Comparison level of alternatives = whether we believe we could gain greater
rewards/fewer costs from another relationship or from being on our own
- We will stay in our relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding than
alternatives
- Duck, if the costs outweigh the rewards then alternatives become more
attractive
A03:
X - Concepts are hard to quantify
Rewards and costs have been defined superficially in order to measure them but
psychological rewards and costs are more difficult to define as they vary from one person to
another
Inability to quantify the concepts makes it difficult to produce valid research support
X - Assumes all relationships are exchange based
Clark & Mills, exchange relationships may involve profit but communal relationships involve
the giving and receiving of rewards without thinking of profit
Suggests SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships
X - Direction of effect
Assumed that dissatisfaction occurs where costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem
more attractive
,Miller, people who said they were in a committed relationship spent less time looking at
images of attractive people (good predictor of the relationship continuing at the 2 month
follow up)
SET may have the wrong direction of cause and effect, rather than lack of profit leading to
dissatisfaction it can be argued that we don’t consider the profit until after we become
dissatisfied
X - Artificial tasks & artificial conditions
Common procedure involves 2 strangers working together on a game-playing scenario in
which rewards/costs are distributed
Know nothing about each other and their ‘relationship’ depends on the task they are
performing together
Suggests SET can’t account for the properties in a relationship that emerge over time (trust)
, PAPER THREE: RELATIONSHIPS
TOPIC: Physical attractiveness (attraction)
A01:
FACIAL SYMMETRY:
- Shackleford & Larsen, people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- Signal of genetic fitness
NEOTENOUS FEATURES:
- Widely separated and large eyes
- Delicate chin
- Small nose
- Big lips
- Rounder face shape
- Trigger a protective/caring instinct
- Found to contribute to female attractiveness
HALO EFFECT:
- Physical attractiveness may matter as we have preconceived ideas about the
personality traits attractive people must have
- Dion et al, physically attractive people are rated as kind, strong, sociable and
successful compared to unattractive people
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS:
- Walster et al, people choose romantic partners who are of a similar physical
attractiveness
- To do this, we make a realistic judgement about our own ‘value’ to a partner
- Narrows the range of available people
- Reduces the likelihood of rejection
A03:
✓ - There is cultural consistency in what is considered attractive
Cunningham et al, female features of large eyes/small nose/high eyebrows were rated as
highly attractive by white/hispanic/asian males
People judged as physically attractive also stereotyped to be more trustworthy, mature,
friendly
Suggests physical attractiveness isn’t culturally independent and may have evolutionary
roots
✓ - Research support for the halo effect
Palmer & Peterson, physical attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable than
unattractive people
Persisted even when the p’s knew that these people had no particular expertise
Shows the halo effect can be observed in real life situations
X - Online dating research has not supported its assumptions
Tayler et al, online dates sought dates with partners who were more attractive than
themselves and did not consider their own level attractiveness
Suggests the matching hypothesis does not consider different social influences
X - Not everyone considers physical attractiveness important
