Furthermore, Sprecher in 1998 found that those matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop a long term relationship. This also supports the FM as in the second filter, we filter out those who are very different to us and only keep those who share interest and have things in common. Taking it to a simple level, if one partner is very physically attractive but the other isn’t, then that person may feel insecure because they think that their partner should be with someone of their ‘standards’. Also, if there is nothing or very little in common then communication will be very difficult, thus leading to the end of the relationship.
There are some issues with the methodology used when testing the FM. Firstly it was a longitudinal study so it could be subject to attrition. As participants had the right to withdraw, then those who felt they were inadequate in the study would have dropped out, leaving those who are better in relationships, maybe for reasons such as they are securely attached. This would have led to the results obtained being biased as the sample wouldn’t have been representative.
In conjunction with this, questionnaires were used. As it was an opportunity sample the students may have responded in a way that they thought would benefit the researcher and in a way that was regarded by social norms. Therefore all these factors show that there was social desirability bias, demand characteristics and population validity. There is another type of bias; social economic bias, as student couples of the same age group and culture were used. This is further reinforced as only one generation was used. If a few generations would have been used then there may have been another trend in the results, for example older generations would have found filter 2 more important than filter 3.
By explaining relationship formation in stages it fails to capture their fluid and dynamic nature. Some relationships flow at a slower or faster rate than the model suggest. It may not take a couple 18 months for the third filter to become most important and the evidence suggests. Alongside to this, the FM doesn’t account for individual differences as it has only dealt with similarities of personality and attitudes. There are some couples who have nothing in common but their relationship is as strong as others who have everything in common. Sometimes it’s better to have fewer things in common than everything because couples can get bored of each other when everything they do is the same.
Lastly, the FM is too reductionist as they have put complex terms such as the formation of relationships and deconstructed them into 3 filters. There are many other factors which will cause a relationship to form. Their personality isn’t all that is considered, women will seek for economic security at an early stage to ensure they will have financial support whilst bringing up their children. Men on the other hand will look for physical attractiveness and women who are young, which indicated they are healthy and fertile.
Discuss research into the influence of childhood experiences on adult relationships (4+8 marks)
Bowlby argued that attachments are innate and therefore instinctive. With others they agreed that through the role of social releasers alongside to other factors, infants form one main attachment to a main caregiver, i.e. monotropy. This first relationship provides a basis, so in essence acts as a template or an internal working model (IWM). This IWM acts as a template for future relationships, i.e. all adult relationships are a continuation of the first type of relationship an individual formed.
The continuity hypothesis will therefore suggest that the child’s attachment classification, i.e. secure or insecure, will affect their future adult romantic relationships. Hazan and shaver in 1987 studied the continuity hypothesis in adult romantic relationships though their ‘Love Quiz’. They set out the question ‘Is love in adulthood directly related to the attachment type as a child?’ in a newspaper. Descriptions of 3 attitudes towards adult relationships were published. These were based on Ainsworth et al.’s attachment types: secure, insecure avoidant and insecure ambivalent. Readers were asked to choose which one suited them best and to explain their relationship with their caregiver.
The results found that the attachment type chosen was significantly related to how they felt about adult relationships. Secure people (56%) were more likely to enjoy secure relationships as an adult because they believe in lasting love and trust. They are also not afraid of closeness and have high self esteem. Insecure avoidant people (25%) were more likely to find it difficult to trust people and were doubtful about the existence of love. Insecure ambivalent people (19%) found it hard to get others as close to them as they wanted because they experience emotional extremes of jealousy and passion as well as wanting to merge with their partner. Researchers found a strong positive correlation between childhood attachment type and adulthood attachment type: secure people had relationship lasting 2 times more than insecure people.
However, there are some methodological issues with this study. As the ad was placed in a newspaper it would have been a volunteer and random sample. Alongside to this the volunteers would have mainly been of the older generation because realistically not many youngsters read the newspaper on a daily basis. Due to this the results will be representative because people of all cultures and ages wouldn’t have replied to the ad. Furthermore, they used self report methods which is prone to demand characteristics and social desirability bias, as volunteers will try to represent themselves as well as possible as well as respond in a manner they believe was expected from them. Also, retrospective accounts rely on memory. Such recollections are likely to be flawed and the data obtained will be biased. Lastly, looking at ethical issues, the participants wouldn’t have been fully debriefed as they didn’t know the true nature of the study and they were self selected from newspaper readers. Therefore, the participants were not protected from psychological harm.
The results of this study were supported by a number of other studies such as by Feeny and Noller (1990) where they found that securely attached individuals had the most long term enduring romantic relationships. Avoidantly attached people had short lived and least intense relationships.
However there is contradictory evidence that fails to confirm a link between early attachment experiences and later adult relationships. Zimmerman (2000) found that children attachment types didn’t predict adult attachment type. Events such as parental divorce or illness, i.e. life changing events had much more of an influence on later security. This was confirmed by Hamilton (1994) who found that children could move from being classed as secure to insecure when a major life changing event occurs. Many other studies also show that people who experienced parental divorce during childhood have more negative attitudes towards relationships than those who didn’t experience this. Silvestri (1991) found that having divorced parents significantly increases an individual’s chances of getting divorced themselves. Johnston and Thomas (1996) suggested that this could be because individuals model their adult relationship on their parents.
Due to this psychologists have come up with other possible alternative explanations for the continuity between childhood attachment and later attachments. Some researchers have suggested that children may learn relationship skills from their parents, i.e. Social Learning Theory (SLT). Children will observe their parent’s behaviour and will then imitate it. If the father cheats on the mother and causes a divorce then the mother will be hurt, the child will see her through this pain, causing her not to trust men in relationships. This in turn means that their relationships will be shorter and therefore will become insecurely attached in their adult attachment type whereas with their main caregiver they will be securely attached.
by
rac_713hotmailcom (student)
