AQA A-level Psychology · 4.3.2

Relationships

50 exam-style questions with answers for 4.3.2 Relationships in AQA A-level Psychology (spec 7182). Practise with flashcards, a topic quiz, a random quiz across the course, 5 crosswords, or read every question and answer below. Not official AQA material.

All 50 questions and answers

Question 1 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain what is meant by sexual selection. [2 marks]
Answer:
An evolutionary explanation of partner preference (1); characteristics that increase reproductive success are passed on and become exaggerated over generations, e.g. the peacock's tail (1).
Question 2 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain the difference between intra-sexual and inter-sexual selection. [3 marks]
Answer:
Intra-sexual selection: competition between members of the same sex, usually males, to gain access to a mate (1); the winner reproduces, so the traits that help them win are passed on, e.g. size and aggression (1); inter-sexual selection: one sex, usually females, chooses mates based on preferred characteristics, e.g. ability to provide resources (1).
Question 3 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain how anisogamy relates to partner preferences. [3 marks]
Answer:
Anisogamy refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes) (1); sperm are small, plentiful and produced continuously, so males can reproduce often with little investment (1); eggs are large, limited and costly, so females are choosy and prefer high-quality mates (1).
Question 4 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Outline Buss's (1989) research into partner preferences. [3 marks]
Answer:
A survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asked about age and other characteristics important in a partner (1); females valued resource-related characteristics such as good financial prospects and ambition more than males (1); males valued reproductive capacity, e.g. good looks and preferred younger partners, supporting evolutionary theory (1).
Question 5 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Outline Clark and Hatfield's (1989) study of sexual selection. [3 marks]
Answer:
Male and female students were approached by an attractive stranger of the opposite sex (1); the stranger asked whether they would go to bed with them (1); 75% of males agreed but no females did, supporting the idea that females are choosier (1).
Question 6 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain one limitation of evolutionary explanations of partner preferences. [2 marks]
Answer:
They ignore social and cultural changes, e.g. women's increased role in the workplace means they no longer rely on men for resources (1); Bereczkei et al. (1997) argued this has changed women's preferences, so preferences are not just evolutionary (1).
Question 7 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain why evolutionary explanations of partner preferences may be seen as heterosexist. [2 marks]
Answer:
They focus on reproduction and assume relationships are heterosexual (1); so they cannot explain partner preferences in same-sex relationships (1).
Question 8 · Spec 4.3.2 · Self-disclosure
What is meant by self-disclosure in romantic relationships? [2 marks]
Answer:
Revealing personal information about yourself to a partner (1); it increases intimacy and attraction when it is gradual and reciprocal (1).
Question 9 · Spec 4.3.2 · Self-disclosure
Outline social penetration theory. [3 marks]
Answer:
Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed self-disclosure involves the gradual exchange of increasingly intimate information (1); breadth: at first, many topics are discussed but they are superficial (1); depth: as trust grows, more personal and deeper information is revealed, like peeling the layers of an onion (1).
Question 10 · Spec 4.3.2 · Self-disclosure
Explain one strength of research into self-disclosure. [2 marks]
Answer:
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure in heterosexual dating couples (1); this supports the role of self-disclosure in maintaining romantic relationships (1).
Question 11 · Spec 4.3.2 · Self-disclosure
Explain one limitation of research into self-disclosure. [2 marks]
Answer:
Research is mostly based on Western cultures, where people disclose more (1); Tang et al. (2013) found people in collectivist cultures such as China disclose less, but are equally satisfied, so findings are culturally limited (1).
Question 12 · Spec 4.3.2 · Physical attractiveness
Explain why physical attractiveness may be important in romantic relationships. [2 marks]
Answer:
Shackelford and Larsen (1997) found people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive, possibly signalling genetic fitness (1); and the halo effect means we assume attractive people have other positive traits, e.g. being kind (1).
Question 13 · Spec 4.3.2 · Physical attractiveness
Outline the matching hypothesis. [3 marks]
Answer:
Walster et al. (1966) proposed we choose partners of a similar level of attractiveness to ourselves (1); we assess our own 'value' to a potential partner (1); this balances wanting the most attractive partner against the risk of rejection (1).
Question 14 · Spec 4.3.2 · Physical attractiveness
Explain one limitation of the matching hypothesis. [2 marks]
Answer:
Taylor et al. (2011) found online daters sought meetings with partners more attractive than themselves (1); this contradicts the idea that we match on attractiveness (1).
Question 15 · Spec 4.3.2 · Physical attractiveness
Explain one strength of research into physical attractiveness. [2 marks]
Answer:
Palmer and Peterson (2012) found attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable, supporting the halo effect (1); and Cunningham et al. (1995) found features of female attractiveness were consistent across cultures, suggesting an evolutionary basis (1).
Question 16 · Spec 4.3.2 · Filter theory
Outline filter theory as an explanation of attraction. [4 marks]
Answer:
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) proposed we choose partners by narrowing down a 'field of availables' using three filters (1); social demography: factors such as location and social class mean we are most likely to meet people nearby and similar to us (1); similarity in attitudes: early in the relationship, we are attracted to people who share our beliefs and values (1); complementarity: later, partners who meet each other's needs, e.g. one likes to care and the other to be cared for (1).
Question 17 · Spec 4.3.2 · Filter theory
Explain one limitation of filter theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Kerckhoff and Davis' findings have not been replicated, e.g. Levinger (1974) found no support (1); social changes, e.g. online dating, may have reduced the importance of social demography, so it may lack temporal validity (1).
Question 18 · Spec 4.3.2 · Filter theory
Explain one strength of filter theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Kerckhoff and Davis found similarity of attitudes was the most important factor for partners together less than 18 months (1); and complementarity was more important for longer-term couples, supporting the idea of different filters at different stages (1).
Question 19 · Spec 4.3.2 · Social exchange theory
Outline social exchange theory. [4 marks]
Answer:
Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed a minimax principle: we try to maximise rewards and minimise costs (1); rewards include companionship and sex, and costs include stress and lost opportunities (1); comparison level: the amount of reward we feel we deserve, based on past experience (1); comparison level for alternatives: whether we could gain more rewards and fewer costs with another partner or by being alone (1).
Question 20 · Spec 4.3.2 · Social exchange theory
Name the four stages of relationship development in social exchange theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Sampling and bargaining (1); commitment and institutionalisation (1).
Question 21 · Spec 4.3.2 · Social exchange theory
Explain one limitation of social exchange theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
It is hard to define rewards and costs, as they are subjective and vary between people (1); and it ignores equity: Clark and Mills (1979) found communal couples do not keep score of rewards and costs (1).
Question 22 · Spec 4.3.2 · Equity theory
Outline equity theory. [3 marks]
Answer:
Walster et al. (1978) proposed partners are most satisfied when the ratio of rewards to costs is fair (equal) for both (1); under-benefiting causes anger and resentment, and over-benefiting causes guilt (1); dissatisfaction leads partners to try to restore equity, e.g. by revising perceptions of rewards and costs (1).
Question 23 · Spec 4.3.2 · Equity theory
Explain one strength of equity theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Utne et al. (1984) found couples who considered their relationships equitable were more satisfied (1); this supports the role of fairness in relationship satisfaction (1).
Question 24 · Spec 4.3.2 · Equity theory
Explain one limitation of equity theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
There are cultural differences: Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found equity linked to satisfaction in all cultures except Jamaica (1); and there are individual differences: some people (benevolents) are happy to give more than they receive, so the theory is not universal (1).
Question 25 · Spec 4.3.2 · Rusbult's investment model
Outline Rusbult's investment model. [4 marks]
Answer:
Commitment depends on three factors (1); satisfaction level: based on comparison level, the extent to which partners' needs are met (1); comparison with alternatives: whether the person's needs might be better met by someone else or by being alone (1); investment size: intrinsic (e.g. time, emotion) and extrinsic (e.g. shared house, children) resources that would be lost if the relationship ended (1).
Question 26 · Spec 4.3.2 · Rusbult's investment model
Explain how the investment model can explain why people stay in abusive relationships. [2 marks]
Answer:
Rusbult and Martz (1995) found women in a shelter who stayed with abusive partners had invested more and had poor alternatives (1); so commitment can remain high even when satisfaction is low (1).
Question 27 · Spec 4.3.2 · Rusbult's investment model
Explain one strength of Rusbult's investment model. [2 marks]
Answer:
Le and Agnew (2003) carried out a meta-analysis of 52 studies with 11,000 participants from five countries (1); satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment predicted commitment in all cultures and in gay and lesbian relationships (1).
Question 28 · Spec 4.3.2 · Rusbult's investment model
Explain one limitation of Rusbult's investment model. [2 marks]
Answer:
Most research uses self-report, which may be affected by social desirability bias (1); and it is correlational, so it cannot show that investment causes commitment (1).
Question 29 · Spec 4.3.2 · Duck's phase model
Outline Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown. [4 marks]
Answer:
Intra-psychic phase: one partner broods privately about dissatisfaction with the relationship (1); dyadic phase: the partners discuss the dissatisfaction, which may involve hostility (1); social phase: the breakdown is made public, friends take sides and offer support (1); grave-dressing phase: partners create a story of the break-up that protects their reputation and helps them move on (1).
Question 30 · Spec 4.3.2 · Duck's phase model
Identify the phase of Duck's model in each case: (a) Sam tells his friends about problems with his partner; (b) Ali thinks privately about leaving his partner; (c) Jo tells people the breakup was mutual. [3 marks]
Answer:
(a) social phase (1); (b) intra-psychic phase (1); (c) grave-dressing phase (1).
Question 31 · Spec 4.3.2 · Duck's phase model
Explain one strength of Duck's phase model. [2 marks]
Answer:
It has real-life application, as it suggests interventions suited to each phase (1); e.g. in the intra-psychic phase, people could focus on positive aspects of their partner (1).
Question 32 · Spec 4.3.2 · Duck's phase model
Explain one limitation of Duck's phase model. [2 marks]
Answer:
It is descriptive, explaining what happens during breakdown but not why it happens (1); and Rollie and Duck (2006) added a resurrection phase, suggesting the original model was incomplete (1).
Question 33 · Spec 4.3.2 · Virtual relationships
Outline the reduced cues theory of self-disclosure in virtual relationships. [3 marks]
Answer:
Sproull and Kiesler (1986) proposed virtual relationships lack cues such as facial expressions and tone of voice (1); this causes de-individuation, which reduces inhibitions (1); so people may be more aggressive and disclose less, or more blunt, information (1).
Question 34 · Spec 4.3.2 · Virtual relationships
Outline the hyperpersonal model of self-disclosure in virtual relationships. [3 marks]
Answer:
Walther (1996) proposed online relationships can be more personal than face-to-face ones (1); they involve greater and earlier self-disclosure, so become intimate quickly (1); the sender can present an idealised self (selective self-presentation), and anonymity increases disclosure, which may also end the relationship quickly (1).
Question 35 · Spec 4.3.2 · Virtual relationships
Explain the effects of absence of gating on virtual relationships. [2 marks]
Answer:
Gating refers to obstacles that limit the formation of relationships, e.g. physical appearance or shyness (1); online, these gates are absent, so people can form relationships they might not otherwise have and focus on self-disclosure (1).
Question 36 · Spec 4.3.2 · Virtual relationships
Explain one limitation of the reduced cues theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
It suggests cues are completely absent online, but other cues are used, e.g. emojis, acronyms and response time (1); Walther and Tidwell (1995) found timing of messages was an important cue, so cues are different rather than absent (1).
Question 37 · Spec 4.3.2 · Virtual relationships
Explain one strength of the hyperpersonal model. [2 marks]
Answer:
Whitty and Joinson (2009) found questions asked in online discussion were more probing and direct (1); this supports the idea that self-disclosure is greater in virtual relationships (1).
Question 38 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
What is a parasocial relationship? [2 marks]
Answer:
A one-sided relationship, e.g. with a celebrity (1); one person invests time and emotional energy while the other is unaware of their existence (1).
Question 39 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Outline the three levels of parasocial relationships. [3 marks]
Answer:
Entertainment-social: celebrities are viewed as a source of entertainment and gossip (1); intense-personal: a deeper level involving obsessive thoughts and feelings about the celebrity (1); borderline-pathological: uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours, e.g. spending lots of money or stalking (1).
Question 40 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Name the scale used to measure levels of parasocial relationships. [1 mark]
Answer:
The Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS), developed by McCutcheon et al. (2002).
Question 41 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Outline the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships. [3 marks]
Answer:
McCutcheon (2002) proposed parasocial relationships compensate for deficiencies in a person's own life (1); absorption: seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship, focusing attention on the celebrity (1); addiction: the person needs stronger involvement to feel satisfied, leading to delusional thinking and behaviour (1).
Question 42 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Outline the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships. [3 marks]
Answer:
Bowlby argued early attachment affects later relationships (1); Ainsworth's insecure-resistant individuals are most likely to form parasocial relationships to fulfil unmet needs without the risk of rejection (1); insecure-avoidant individuals prefer to avoid the pressures of relationships, so they are less likely to form them (1).
Question 43 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Explain one limitation of the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships. [2 marks]
Answer:
McCutcheon et al. (2006) found no link between attachment type and parasocial relationships in 299 participants (1); so the explanation is not supported by research (1).
Question 44 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Explain one strength of the absorption addiction model. [2 marks]
Answer:
Maltby et al. (2003) found the entertainment-social level was linked to extraversion, and intense-personal to neuroticism (1); this supports the idea that the levels are distinct and linked to personality, as the model predicts (1).
Question 45 · Spec 4.3.2 · Parasocial relationships
Explain one methodological limitation of research into parasocial relationships. [2 marks]
Answer:
Much research is correlational, so it cannot show that deficiencies cause parasocial relationships (1); and it uses self-report, which may be affected by social desirability bias (1).
Question 46 · Spec 4.3.2 · Theories of romantic relationships
Explain the difference between social exchange theory and equity theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Social exchange theory focuses on maximising rewards and minimising costs for the individual (1); equity theory focuses on fairness, so partners are satisfied when both have a similar ratio of rewards to costs (1).
Question 47 · Spec 4.3.2 · Theories of romantic relationships
Explain how social exchange theory explains a person ending a relationship. [2 marks]
Answer:
The person feels the costs of the relationship outweigh the rewards (1); and their comparison level for alternatives suggests they could do better with someone else or by being alone (1).
Question 48 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain why males might prefer younger female partners, according to evolutionary theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Younger females are more fertile, so have greater reproductive value (1); males who chose younger partners were more likely to reproduce successfully, so the preference was passed on (1).
Question 49 · Spec 4.3.2 · Evolutionary explanations
Explain why females may prefer partners with resources, according to evolutionary theory. [2 marks]
Answer:
Females invest heavily in offspring, e.g. pregnancy and breastfeeding (1); a partner with resources can help ensure the survival of offspring, increasing reproductive success (1).
Question 50 · Spec 4.3.2 · Filter theory
Explain why social demography acts as a filter in partner choice. [2 marks]
Answer:
Factors such as geographical location, social class, education and ethnicity limit who we meet (1); we tend to meet and be attracted to people who are similar to us (homogamy) (1).

← 4.3.1 Issues and debates in Psychology 4.3.3 Gender →

Relationships

All 50 questions and answers

More AQA A-level Psychology topics

Cookies on Knowledge Noodles

Cookie settings