Relationships — AQA A-Level Psychology
Test yourself on Relationships with AQA A-Level practice questions.
7 days Premium · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge
Relationships explained
Three separate mechanisms, so learn them separately.
Read the full explanation
Self disclosure builds intimacy through reciprocity: Altman and Taylor picture the person as an onion whose layers are peeled back in breadth and depth, and Reis and Shaver add that a disclosure must be returned and responded to or the relationship stalls. Physical attractiveness works through the halo effect, since Dion (1972) found attractive faces were rated kinder and more successful, so beauty buys traits it never earned. The matching hypothesis says we settle for someone of similar attractiveness to avoid rejection, although Walster's computer dance failed to support it because students simply liked the best looking partner. Filter theory (Kerckhoff and Davis, 1962) narrows a field of availables by social demography, then by similarity of attitudes early on, then by complementarity in couples together over eighteen months.
Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
These theories treat love as accounting, and each fixes a flaw in the one before. Social exchange (Thibaut and Kelley) says we weigh rewards against costs and judge the profit against two standards, a comparison level set by past relationships and a comparison level for alternatives. Equity theory answers that fairness beats profit, since a partner who is over benefitted feels guilt and one who is under benefitted feels resentment. Rusbult then explains why people stay when profit is negative: commitment rests on satisfaction, poor alternatives and investment, the time, money and children already sunk in. Rusbult and Martz (1995) found abused women returned to partners when investment was high and alternatives were poor. Duck adds a timeline of breakdown, moving from private brooding to confrontation, then to going public and finally to the story each partner tells afterwards.
Online relationships: self-disclosure, use of deception, effects of absence of gating.
Online relationships, or computer-mediated communication (CMC), differ greatly from face-to-face interactions. Self-disclosure is often higher in CMC because anonymity reduces the fear of negative judgement, leading to rapid intimacy (the hyperpersonal model). However, this same anonymity facilitates the use of deception, allowing individuals to manipulate their online identities or misrepresent traits. A defining feature of CMC is the effects of the absence of gating. In person, 'gates' like physical attractiveness or social anxiety can hinder relationship formation. The absence of these gates online allows relationships to develop based on self-disclosure rather than superficial features, empowering those who struggle socially.
Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.
A parasocial relationship is one sided: the fan knows the celebrity intimately and the celebrity does not know the fan exists, so there is no risk of rejection. Maltby's work with the Celebrity Attitude Scale gives three levels, and they are levels of intensity rather than stages everyone passes through. Entertainment social is ordinary fandom and gossip, intense personal involves obsessive thoughts and feelings of a soulmate bond and correlates with anxiety and depression, and borderline pathological involves fantasies of control and willingness to spend money or break the law. McCutcheon's absorption addiction model says such relationships fill a deficient sense of self: absorption is preoccupation with the figure, addiction is needing stronger doses to sustain the feeling. The attachment explanation predicts insecure resistant adults form them most readily.
Your focus
- Describe self-disclosure, the halo effect and filter theory as three separate routes to attraction rather than one process.
- Explain why a disclosure only raises attraction when it is reciprocated and met with responsiveness.
- Apply filter theory to a given couple by naming which of the three filters is operating at their stage.
Show all 14 objectives
- Evaluate the matching hypothesis using Walster's computer dance result and the missing risk of rejection in its design.
- Describe social exchange theory using rewards minus costs, comparison level and comparison level for alternatives.
- Explain why Rusbult's model predicts a partner stays when profit is negative, using alternatives and investment.
- Apply Duck's four phases to a described break-up and name the phase a given behaviour belongs to.
- Evaluate the economic metaphor using Clark and Mills on communal partners who do not monitor rewards.
- Explain the role of self-disclosure and deception in computer-mediated communication.
- Describe the effects of the absence of gating on the formation of online relationships.
- Evaluate psychological theories of online relationships using relevant research evidence.
- Describe Maltby's three levels of parasocial relationship in order of intensity and the behaviour marking each.
- Apply the absorption addiction model to a described fan and state which level their behaviour places them at.
- Evaluate the attachment explanation using McCutcheon's failure to link attachment type to parasocial relationships.
Relationships exam tips
Marking Points
- Self disclosure defined as revealing private information, with reciprocity and appropriate depth as the conditions for it to increase attraction.
- Social penetration theory named, breadth and depth distinguished, Reis and Shaver's point about responsiveness added.
- Halo effect explained through Dion (1972), with the physical attractiveness stereotype that what is beautiful is good.
- Matching hypothesis stated as choosing a partner of comparable attractiveness after realistically judging one's own value.
- Filter theory's three filters in order: social demography (proximity, class, education), similarity of attitudes, complementarity of needs.
- AO3: Walster's own computer dance study did not support the matching hypothesis, because there was no risk of rejection in the design.
- AO3: Kerckhoff and Davis's eighteen month cut off is arbitrary, and Levinger failed to replicate the filters.
- AO3: social demography has weakened as a filter now that online dating removes proximity from the equation.
- Social exchange theory stated as rewards minus costs, with comparison level and comparison level for alternatives defined separately.
- Equity theory distinguished from social exchange: the perceived ratio of inputs to outputs matters more than the size of the profit.
- Both over benefitted and under benefitted partners identified as dissatisfied, with the under benefitted partner more so.
- Rusbult's three factors named precisely: satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment, with intrinsic and extrinsic investment distinguished.
- Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied to explain why a partner stays in an abusive relationship.
- Duck's four phases named in order with their thresholds: intra-psychic, dyadic, social, grave dressing.
- AO3: Clark and Mills argue that partners in communal relationships do not monitor rewards, so the economic metaphor misdescribes real couples.
- AO3: Duck's model is descriptive rather than explanatory, and rests on retrospective accounts from people whose relationships already ended.
- Define self-disclosure in CMC, referencing theories like Walther's hyperpersonal model or reduced cues theory.
- Explain how the absence of gating removes traditional barriers, such as physical appearance or speech impediments, to relationship formation.
- Discuss the use of deception in online relationships, such as editing online profiles to present an idealised self.
- Evaluate theories of online relationships using empirical evidence, such as Whitty and Joinson's findings on the directness of online questioning.
- Parasocial relationship defined as one sided, unreciprocated and with no risk of rejection.
- The three levels named and described in order of intensity, with the Celebrity Attitude Scale as the measure.
- Intense personal linked to poorer mental health, borderline pathological linked to fantasy and illegal behaviour.
- Absorption addiction explained as compensation for a deficient identity, with absorption and addiction defined separately.
- Attachment explanation linked to Bowlby's internal working model, with insecure resistant most likely and insecure avoidant least likely.
- AO3: the evidence is correlational and self report, so a weak identity may follow the parasocial relationship rather than cause it.
- AO3: McCutcheon and colleagues found no relationship between attachment type and the likelihood of a parasocial relationship, which undermines the attachment account.
- AO3: Schmid and Klimmt found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in individualist and collectivist cultures, suggesting a universal process.
Examiner Tips
- 💡If the question names one factor, write about that factor only. A paragraph on filter theory in a question about self disclosure gathers no marks.
- 💡Use the correlation problem as ready made AO3: similar attitudes may be the result of being attracted and converging, not the cause of the attraction.
- 💡For scenario items, tie each named character to one filter, and say which filter is operating at their stage of the relationship.
- 💡Quote the stem in application questions. A couple arguing in front of friends is in the social phase, while a partner privately resenting the housework is intra-psychic.
- 💡Use direction of causality as AO3: dissatisfaction may cause a partner to start counting costs rather than counted costs causing the dissatisfaction.
- 💡Save a line on real world value, since Duck's model suggests intervention, with skills training in the intra-psychic phase and mediation in the dyadic phase.
- 💡Use the concept of 'selective self-presentation' to link self-disclosure and the use of deception in your essays.
- 💡When evaluating the absence of gating, consider the real-world application for individuals with social anxiety or physical disabilities.
- 💡Contrast computer-mediated communication with face-to-face interactions to highlight the unique effects of gating and anonymity.
- 💡Use the level names as your structure in a description question, then use their measurement by questionnaire as the way into evaluation.
- 💡For an application item, match the described behaviour to a level and justify the match with the behaviour itself, such as travelling across the country to wait outside a hotel.
- 💡Keep a methodological criticism ready: the Celebrity Attitude Scale is self report, so social desirability suppresses the borderline pathological answers.
Common Mistakes
- Saying the matching hypothesis means partners are matched on personality or wealth. It is specifically about perceived physical attractiveness.
- Claiming Walster's study proved matching. It found the opposite, and the credit comes from explaining why the design let participants ignore rejection risk.
- Describing self disclosure as simply talking a lot. Too much too soon reduces attraction, and reciprocity is the part that is credited.
- Treating complementarity as the same as similarity. Complementarity is needs that fit together, such as one partner who likes to care and one who likes to be cared for.
- Confusing the two comparison levels. The comparison level is what you think you deserve based on past relationships, the comparison level for alternatives is whether someone better is available.
- Reducing equity theory to equality. Equity is a fair ratio of what each puts in to what each gets out, so unequal contributions can still be equitable.
- Leaving investment out of the investment model, or naming commitment as a fourth factor rather than as the outcome the three factors produce.
- Getting Duck's phases out of order, or omitting the thresholds that move a partner from one phase to the next.
- Error: Confusing the hyperpersonal model with reduced cues theory. Correction: Ensure you state that the hyperpersonal model suggests CMC leads to greater self-disclosure, whereas reduced cues theory suggests it leads to de-individuation and less self-disclosure.
- Error: Failing to define what a 'gate' is before discussing its absence. Correction: Explicitly define a gate as any obstacle to the formation of a relationship, such as physical unattractiveness or social anxiety.
- Error: Treating all online relationships as identical. Correction: Acknowledge that self-disclosure and deception vary depending on the platform, for example, dating apps versus gaming forums.
- Treating the three levels as developmental stages. They are degrees of intensity, and most fans never move beyond entertainment social.
- Describing absorption and addiction as one idea. Absorption is preoccupation and identification, addiction is escalation to keep the same effect.
- Naming the wrong attachment type. It is insecure resistant, not insecure avoidant, who seek the unfulfilled closeness a celebrity can safely provide.
- Presenting parasocial relationships as automatically unhealthy, when entertainment social attachment is normal and sociable.