Notes · PsychologyUK · A-Levels

Relationships

This optional topic examines the psychology of human romantic relationships: the evolutionary origins of partner preference, the factors that draw people together, the economic and investment theories that explain why relationships are maintained or break down, and the newer phenomena of virtual and parasocial relationships. It is one of the three choices in the first option block of Paper 3.

5 sections~17 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Standard 1 · Advanced 4

T·0999 / 17

Exam profile

AO1 · Describe the evolutionary explanation, the factors affecting attraction, the theories of relationships, and virtual and parasocial relationshipsAO2 · Apply the theories to novel relationship scenariosAO3 · Evaluate the explanations and theories, including gender bias, methodology and cultural validity

Operators:describeexplainapplyevaluatediscuss

basic level

This is a full A-Level (A2) optional topic; it is not part of AS. On Paper 3 students answer questions on one topic chosen from this option block (Relationships, Gender or Cognition and development).

higher level

The full A-Level requires the ability to describe, apply and evaluate each theory of attraction, maintenance and breakdown, and to compare the economic and investment models.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Relationships

Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences#

AdvancedAQA 7182 3.3.2DfE GCE Psychology - evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

Sexual selection and partner preference

Fig. 1Anisogamy underlies two forms of sexual selection - intersexual (choosing) and intrasexual (competing) - that shape evolved partner preferences.

The evolutionary explanation argues that human partner preferences have been shaped by natural and sexual selection because they helped our ancestors reproduce successfully. The key mechanism is anisogamy - the difference between the sexes in the size and number of their gametes: males produce many small, mobile sperm continuously, while females produce a small number of large, energy-rich eggs and invest heavily in pregnancy. This asymmetry means the two sexes face different reproductive challenges and so, the theory predicts, have evolved different mate preferences.

Sexual selection is the selection of characteristics that increase reproductive success, and it takes two forms. Intersexual selection ('between the sexes') is the strategy of one sex choosing a mate: because eggs are the scarcer resource, females are predicted to be choosier, selecting males who show signs of good genes or the ability to provide resources - so male traits that females prefer are passed on. Intrasexual selection ('within a sex') is competition among members of one sex (usually males) for access to mates: the winners pass on the characteristics that gave them the advantage (such as size or aggression), which is used to explain some sex differences.

The theory makes specific predictions that have been tested. Buss's large cross-cultural survey found broad support: across many cultures women valued resources and ambition in a partner more than men did, while men valued youth and physical attractiveness (cues to fertility) more than women did - consistent with the different reproductive investments of the sexes. This cross-cultural consistency is used as evidence that the preferences are evolved rather than merely learned.

The evolutionary explanation is evaluated for both support and serious limitations. It is supported by cross-cultural consistency and can explain otherwise puzzling preferences. However, it is criticised as deterministic and reductionist (reducing mate choice to genetics and ignoring free choice and culture), as socially sensitive and potentially alpha-biased (it can be read as justifying gender stereotypes or infidelity as 'natural'), and as ignoring social and cultural change - preferences have shifted as women have gained economic independence, which a purely evolutionary account struggles to explain. It also cannot easily account for homosexual relationships, which do not fit a straightforward reproductive model.

Worked example

Deriving a prediction from the theory

The evolutionary approach predicts a sex difference in what people prioritise in a partner. Set out the reasoning and one piece of supporting evidence.

Start from anisogamy
Females make a large investment (eggs, pregnancy) and few gametes, so they benefit from choosing a partner with resources and good genes; males make a small investment and many gametes, so they benefit from fertility cues.
Derive the prediction
Females should prioritise resources and ambition; males should prioritise youth and physical attractiveness (cues to fertility).
Cite evidence
Buss's cross-cultural survey found exactly this pattern across many cultures, supporting the evolved-preference prediction.

Result: Anisogamy predicts females value resources and males value fertility cues - a pattern Buss found cross-culturally.

Typical mistakes

Confusing intersexual (choosing a mate) with intrasexual (competing for a mate) selection.
Presenting evolved preferences as fixed and inevitable, ignoring cultural and social change.

Active revision

Explain how anisogamy leads to different predicted mate preferences in males and females.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure, physical attractiveness and filter theory#

AdvancedAQA 7182 3.3.2DfE GCE Psychology - factors affecting attraction

Filter theory of attraction

Fig. 2Filter theory narrows the field of potential partners through three successive filters as a relationship develops.

Three factors affecting attraction are named. Self-disclosure is the revealing of personal information about oneself to another. According to social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor), relationships develop as partners gradually disclose more and more, increasing in both breadth and depth; reciprocal self-disclosure (each responding to the other's disclosures) builds trust and intimacy. The link is not unlimited - disclosing too much too soon can be off-putting - but appropriate reciprocal disclosure predicts greater satisfaction.

Physical attractiveness matters more than people often admit. The halo effect means we assume physically attractive people also have other desirable qualities (kindness, competence), so we behave more positively towards them. The matching hypothesis (Walster) proposes that, rather than pursuing the most attractive person, people tend to choose partners of a similar level of physical attractiveness to themselves, balancing the desire for an attractive partner against the fear of rejection by someone 'out of their league'.

Filter theory (Kerckhoff and Davis) explains how we narrow the field of potential partners over time using a series of filters. The first filter is social demography (proximity, social class, education, religion): we are most likely to form relationships with people who are geographically and socially close, which narrows the 'field of availables' to a smaller 'field of desirables'. The second filter, most important in the early stages, is similarity in attitudes: partners who share values are more likely to continue. The third filter, more important in longer-term relationships, is complementarity: partners who meet each other's different needs (one talkative, one a good listener) tend to stay together.

These factors are evaluated for support and limitations. Self-disclosure research has good real-world application (advice for building intimacy) but is largely correlational, so we cannot be sure disclosure causes attraction rather than the reverse. The matching hypothesis has mixed support - people often desire the most attractive partner and settle for a similar one - and much of the evidence comes from artificial studies. Filter theory has been criticised because later research has failed to replicate its findings, because social change and online dating have weakened the social-demography filter (widening the field of availables), and because it may confuse cause and effect (similarity may grow as a relationship develops rather than causing it).

Worked example

Tracing a couple through the filters

Two students meet at the same university, discover they share political and religious views, and later find that his outgoing nature complements her quietness. Analyse this using filter theory.

Social demography
Attending the same university makes them geographically and socially close, so they pass the first (social-demography) filter from the field of availables into the field of desirables.
Similarity in attitudes
Sharing political and religious views means they pass the second filter, which matters most in the early stage of the relationship.
Complementarity
As the relationship matures, his outgoing nature meeting her need for a confident partner (and vice versa) satisfies the third filter, complementarity, supporting a lasting bond.

Result: The couple pass all three filters in sequence, illustrating how filter theory narrows and sustains a relationship.

Typical mistakes

Saying the matching hypothesis means people choose the most attractive partner - it is a similar level of attractiveness.
Getting the filters out of order or confusing similarity in attitudes with complementarity.

Active revision

Explain how filter theory would account for two people from the same town who share values forming a lasting relationship.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

Economic theories: social exchange and equity#

AdvancedAQA 7182 3.3.2DfE GCE Psychology - theories of romantic relationships

Social exchange and comparison levels

Fig. 3Social exchange theory: a relationship is maintained when its outcome exceeds the comparison level and no better alternative exists.

Economic theories treat relationships as a kind of exchange in which partners try to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs. Social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley) proposes that we assess a relationship in terms of its rewards (companionship, sex, support) minus its costs (time, effort, conflict) to judge the profit or outcome. We evaluate this against two comparison levels: the comparison level (CL) - our expectation of what we deserve, based on past relationships and social norms - and the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) - whether we could do better in another relationship or alone. A relationship is maintained if its profit exceeds our CL and there is no better alternative.

Thibaut and Kelley also described stages through which a relationship develops as partners work out the pattern of exchange: sampling (exploring rewards and costs), bargaining (negotiating the exchange), commitment (the exchange becomes stable and predictable) and institutionalisation (the norms of give and take are firmly established). The key idea is that relationships are dynamic economic arrangements rather than fixed states.

Equity theory (Walster) developed social exchange theory by arguing that it is not the size of the profit that matters most, but fairness. People are most satisfied when they perceive equity - when what they put into a relationship is roughly matched by what they get out, so that both partners' ratios of benefits to contributions feel fair. Both under-benefitting (putting in more than you get) and over-benefitting (getting more than you give) cause distress and dissatisfaction, and partners are motivated to restore equity, for example by changing their contributions or their perceptions.

The economic theories are evaluated as insightful but limited. Their strength is that they explain why some people stay in unsatisfying relationships (a poor relationship may still be maintained if the alternatives seem worse), and equity theory has cross-cultural and real-world support. Their weaknesses are that they may apply better to some relationships than others (research suggests they describe Western, individualist and short-term relationships better than long-term or collectivist ones), that measuring rewards, costs and equity is difficult and subjective, and that reducing love to profit-and-loss ignores the possibility of selfless, communal relationships in which partners do not keep score.

Worked example

Applying comparison levels

Someone reports that their relationship is only moderately rewarding, but they believe they could not find anyone better and being alone would be worse. Explain, using social exchange theory, why they stay.

Assess the outcome against the CL
The relationship's profit is moderate; if it meets or slightly exceeds their comparison level (what they feel they deserve), it is tolerable.
Assess the CL for alternatives
They judge that no available alternative - another partner or being single - offers a better outcome, so the CLalt is low.
Predict the behaviour
Because there is no better alternative, social exchange theory predicts they will stay even though the relationship is only moderately rewarding.

Result: A low comparison level for alternatives keeps the person in a modestly rewarding relationship.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the comparison level (what I feel I deserve) with the comparison level for alternatives (could I do better elsewhere).
Saying equity means equality - it means a fair balance of benefits to contributions, not identical inputs.

Active revision

Using social exchange theory, explain why a person might remain in a relationship that gives them little satisfaction.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

Rusbult's investment model and Duck's phase model of breakdown#

AdvancedAQA 7182 3.3.2DfE GCE Psychology - the investment model and relationship breakdown

Rusbult's investment model

Fig. 4Commitment - the key to maintenance - depends on satisfaction, the (poor) alternatives, and the size of the investment.

Rusbult's investment model extends the economic approach to explain commitment - why people stay even through difficult periods. It argues that commitment depends on three factors. Satisfaction is the extent to which the relationship's rewards exceed its costs (as in social exchange theory). Comparison with alternatives is the judgement of whether needs could be better met elsewhere. Investment is what the person would lose if the relationship ended - both intrinsic investments (resources put directly into the relationship, such as time, energy and self-disclosures) and extrinsic investments (resources linked to the relationship, such as shared possessions, children and mutual friends).

The key insight is that commitment - not satisfaction alone - is what maintains a relationship. High satisfaction, poor alternatives and large investments together produce high commitment, and committed partners tend to engage in relationship maintenance behaviours (accommodation, willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness). This explains why some people remain committed even when satisfaction is low: their heavy investment and lack of alternatives keep them in the relationship, which is important for understanding why people stay in unhappy or even abusive relationships.

Duck's phase model describes how relationships break down through four phases, each crossed when a 'threshold' of dissatisfaction is reached. In the intra-psychic phase the dissatisfied partner broods privately on their discontent ('I can't stand this any more'). In the dyadic phase they confront their partner and discuss the problems ('I would be justified in leaving'). In the social phase the breakup is made public, friends and family are told and take sides ('I mean it'). In the grave-dressing phase each partner constructs a favourable account of the breakdown for public consumption and prepares to move on ('it's now inevitable'). Later work added a fifth, resurrection, phase in which partners apply what they have learned to future relationships.

The models are evaluated for their strengths and limitations. The investment model is praised for explaining why people stay in unsatisfying relationships (something social exchange theory struggles with) and has strong supporting evidence, though much of it is correlational and based on self-report. Duck's model has clear real-world application (identifying which phase a couple is in suggests different interventions - repairing intimacy early, or supporting a clean break later) but is criticised for being based largely on Western, individualist relationships, for describing the process rather than fully explaining what causes breakdown, and for the ethical sensitivity of researching couples in distress.

Duck's phase model of breakdown

Fig. 5Breakdown proceeds through four phases, each crossed at a threshold of dissatisfaction.

Worked example

Explaining staying with the investment model

A person in a relationship of fifteen years, with shared children and a home, reports being unhappy but has no intention of leaving. Explain this using the investment model.

Assess satisfaction
Satisfaction is low, so on satisfaction alone (as in social exchange theory) we might predict they would leave.
Assess investment
Fifteen years, shared children and a home are large intrinsic and extrinsic investments that would be lost on breakup.
Predict commitment
The heavy investment, combined with limited alternatives, produces high commitment despite low satisfaction, so the person stays - which the investment model explains but social exchange theory cannot.

Result: Large investments sustain commitment even when satisfaction is low, keeping the person in the relationship.

Typical mistakes

Confusing satisfaction with commitment - the investment model's point is that commitment can be high even when satisfaction is low.
Getting Duck's phases out of order or omitting the grave-dressing phase.

Active revision

Using the investment model, explain why someone might stay in an unsatisfying relationship.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

Virtual and parasocial relationships#

StandardAQA 7182 3.3.2DfE GCE Psychology - virtual and parasocial relationships

Levels of parasocial relationship

Fig. 6Parasocial relationships intensify from the entertainment-social level, through intense-personal, to borderline-pathological.

Virtual relationships in social media are relationships conducted online, and two ideas explain how they differ from face-to-face ones. Self-disclosure online can differ from offline disclosure: the reduced-cues theory suggests the lack of non-verbal cues online reduces the depth of relationships, whereas the hyperpersonal model argues that online relationships can actually become more intimate faster, because people can present a selective, idealised version of themselves and disclose more early on. The absence of gating is a second key idea: a 'gate' is any obstacle to forming a relationship face-to-face (such as shyness, physical appearance or a stammer); online these gates are largely absent, so relationships can form on the basis of shared interests rather than superficial features, though this also allows people to create deceptive identities.

Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships in which a person (the fan) directs a great deal of emotional energy, interest and time towards a figure - usually a celebrity - who is entirely unaware of the fan's existence. Because they involve no risk of rejection and no demands, they are attractive to some people, and the internet and social media have made them more common by creating the illusion of closeness with celebrities.

Parasocial relationships are described at three levels of intensity (from McCutcheon's Celebrity Attitude Scale). The entertainment-social level is the least intense: the celebrity is a source of entertainment and a topic of social conversation. The intense-personal level is more intense: the fan develops intense and compulsive feelings, seeing the celebrity as a soulmate. The borderline-pathological level is the most extreme: the fan has uncontrollable fantasies and may behave in extreme ways (e.g. spending large sums or believing the celebrity would reciprocate).

Two explanations account for parasocial relationships. The absorption-addiction model (McCutcheon) suggests that people with deficiencies in their own lives seek fulfilment through a parasocial relationship: absorption (becoming preoccupied with the celebrity) can escalate into addiction (needing stronger and stronger involvement to feel satisfied), often triggered by stress. The attachment theory explanation suggests that people with insecure attachment types (particularly insecure-resistant) are more prone to parasocial relationships because these offer closeness without the risk of rejection that real relationships carry. The area is evaluated for its links to attachment theory and its real-world relevance, but much of the research is correlational and based on self-report, so it cannot establish that these factors cause parasocial relationships.

Worked example

Classifying a parasocial relationship

A fan spends hours each day thinking about a singer, believes they share a special bond, and becomes distressed when the singer dates someone. Identify the level and the likely explanation.

Identify the level
Intense, compulsive feelings and viewing the celebrity as a soulmate place this at the intense-personal level, more intense than mere entertainment-social.
Apply the absorption-addiction model
The preoccupation (absorption) and escalating emotional need (addiction) suggest the fan may be seeking to fill a deficiency in their own life, possibly triggered by stress.
Consider attachment
An insecure-resistant attachment type would also make such a one-sided, rejection-free relationship attractive, offering a second explanation.

Result: The intense-personal level, best explained by the absorption-addiction model and, potentially, insecure attachment.

Typical mistakes

Saying online relationships are always shallower - the hyperpersonal model argues they can be more intimate.
Confusing the three levels of parasocial relationship or their order of intensity.

Active revision

Explain, using the absorption-addiction model, how a fan's parasocial relationship might escalate from the entertainment-social to the intense-personal level.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification (AQA)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for psychology

AQA

AQA A-level Psychology 7182 specification

Relationships

5 sections~17 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Standard 1 · Advanced 4

Relationships

Key points

Deriving a prediction from the theory

Key points

Tracing a couple through the filters

Key points

Applying comparison levels

Key points

Explaining staying with the investment model

Key points

Classifying a parasocial relationship

Sources

Relationships

Key points

Deriving a prediction from the theory

Key points

Tracing a couple through the filters

Key points

Applying comparison levels

Key points

Explaining staying with the investment model

Key points

Classifying a parasocial relationship

Sources