AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Relationships – Revision Notes

These notes condense the Relationships study guide; read that first for full explanations and worked paragraphs.

They cover section 4.3.2 Relationships of the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025, for AQA A-level Psychology (7182). Relationships is one of the three option 1 topics in Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology (2 hours, 96 marks, 33.3% of A-level). The specification prints that Section B is “one topic from option 1, 9–11 above, multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. Paper 3 also assesses the compulsory Issues and debates content, and one topic each from option 2 (Section C) and option 3 (Section D).

Course links: AQA A-level Psychology hub, AQA A-level Psychology checklist and Relationships practice questions.

What the specification lists

1. Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
2. Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model (commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment). Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
3. Online relationships: self-disclosure, use of deception, effects of absence of gating.
4. Parasocial relationships: levels, the absorption addiction model, the attachment theory explanation.

Key terms

Term	Definition
Self-disclosure	Revealing personal information about yourself to another person
Breadth and depth	Range of topics disclosed, and how personal they are (Altman and Taylor)
Reciprocity	Disclosure by one partner met by understanding and disclosure from the other
Halo effect	Assuming physically attractive people have other positive traits
Matching hypothesis	People seek partners of similar attractiveness to themselves, balancing desirability against the risk of rejection
Field of availables / desirables	Everyone we could meet / those who pass our filters
Social demography	Background factors (location, class, education) that decide who we meet
Complementarity	Partners meeting each other’s different needs
Comparison level (CL)	The reward we expect from a relationship, based on experience
Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)	Whether another relationship, or being single, would be more profitable
Equity	A fair ratio of inputs to outputs for both partners
Under-benefited / over-benefited	Getting less / more than you put in; linked to anger / guilt
Commitment	The intention to stay in a relationship (investment model)
Intrinsic / extrinsic investment	Resources put in directly / resources created by the relationship
Threshold	The point that triggers the next phase in Duck’s model
Grave dressing	Creating a story of the breakup that protects reputation
Gating	Obstacles to starting a relationship face-to-face, such as appearance or shyness
Hyperpersonal model	Online communication can produce faster, deeper disclosure than face-to-face
Reduced cues theory	Online communication lacks non-verbal cues, so disclosure falls
Parasocial relationship	A one-sided relationship with a media figure who does not know you
Absorption / addiction	Preoccupation with a celebrity to build identity / need for ever stronger involvement

Theories and studies at a glance

Who	What	Finding or claim	One evaluation point
Altman and Taylor (1973)	Social penetration theory	Closeness grows as disclosure widens and deepens	Sprecher and Hendrick (2004): disclosure correlates with satisfaction, but correlation only
Walster et al. (1966)	Computer dance; matching hypothesis	Date’s attractiveness predicted liking, whatever one’s own looks	Evidence against deliberate matching
Murstein (1972)	Photos of real couples	Couples more similar in attractiveness than random pairs	Established couples show outcome, not choice
Dion et al. (1972)	Halo effect	Attractive faces rated as having more desirable traits	Explains why looks affect attraction
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)	Filter theory	Similarity matters early; complementarity later	Levinger et al. (1970) did not replicate
Thibaut and Kelley (1959)	Social exchange theory	Stay if profit beats CL and CLalt	Clark and Mills (1979): communal relationships don’t keep score
Walster et al. (1978)	Equity theory	Inequity causes dissatisfaction and attempts to restore balance	Berg and McQuinn (1986): equity did not predict which relationships lasted
Rusbult (1983)	Investment model	Satisfaction, alternatives and investment predict commitment	Le and Agnew (2003) meta-analysis supports all three
Rusbult and Martz (1995)	Women who had used a refuge after abuse	Those with more investment and fewer alternatives more likely to return	Explains staying despite dissatisfaction
Duck (1982); Rollie and Duck (2006)	Phase model; resurrection phase added	Four phases, each triggered by a threshold	Describes rather than explains
Sproull and Kiesler (1986)	Reduced cues theory	Fewer cues, less disclosure online	Joinson (2001) found the opposite
Walther (1996)	Hyperpersonal model	Selective self-presentation; faster, deeper disclosure	Fits Joinson (2001)
Toma et al. (2008)	Profiles vs measured height, weight, age	Most misreported something, usually slightly	Deception modest and strategic
McKenna et al. (2002)	Absence of gating	Lonely and socially anxious people formed close online relationships	Shows online contact can widen opportunity
McCutcheon et al. (2002)	Absorption addiction model	Absorption, then addiction, drives stronger involvement with a celebrity	Mostly correlational self-report
Celebrity Attitude Scale (McCutcheon and colleagues)	Levels of parasocial relationship	Entertainment-social, intense-personal, borderline-pathological	Self-report measure
Cole and Leets (1999)	Attachment explanation	Insecure-resistant most likely to form parasocial relationships	McCutcheon et al. (2006) found no link

Must-know distinctions

• CL vs CLalt. CL judges the relationship against what you expect. CLalt judges it against what else is available.
• Profit vs fairness. Social exchange theory says we want the most profit; equity theory says we want a fair balance, so even being over-benefited is uncomfortable.
• Satisfaction vs commitment. In Rusbult’s model you can be dissatisfied but committed, if investment is high and alternatives are poor.
• Similarity vs complementarity. Similarity is about shared attitudes; complementarity is about different but matching needs.
• Reduced cues vs hyperpersonal. Same feature (fewer cues), opposite prediction about disclosure.
• Intense-personal vs borderline-pathological. The second involves uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviour, not just strong feelings.
• Insecure-resistant vs insecure-avoidant. Resistant: more likely to form parasocial relationships (unmet needs, no rejection risk). Avoidant: less likely (avoids intimacy).

Mini essay plan

“Discuss Rusbult’s investment model of commitment.” (16 marks)

1. Describe (AO1): commitment from satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment; intrinsic and extrinsic investment; planned futures (Goodfriend and Agnew, 2008).
2. Support (AO3): Le and Agnew (2003) meta-analysis; the three factors together explained nearly two-thirds of the variance in commitment.
3. Application: Rusbult and Martz (1995) explains why some people return to abusive partners; social exchange theory struggles to explain this.
4. Limitation: self-report measures; people may justify staying after the event.
5. Limitation: correlational, so commitment may produce perceived investment rather than the reverse.
6. Issues and debates: the model treats commitment as a calculated decision, which links to the free will and determinism debate; it may also reflect individualist cultures where staying or leaving is a personal choice.
7. Judgement: strong explanatory power compared with social exchange theory, but measurement limits how firmly it is supported.

Quick self-test

1. What are the two dimensions of self-disclosure in social penetration theory?
2. State the matching hypothesis in one sentence.
3. Name the three filters, in order.
4. What does CLalt stand for, and what does it measure?
5. How might an under-benefited partner feel, according to equity theory?
6. Name the three factors that predict commitment in Rusbult’s model.
7. Give one example of an extrinsic investment.
8. Which of Duck’s phases involves friends and family taking sides?
9. What is a “gate” in online relationships research?
10. Which theory predicts more self-disclosure online?
11. Name the three levels on the Celebrity Attitude Scale.
12. Which attachment type is predicted to be most likely to form parasocial relationships?

Answers

1. Breadth and depth.
2. People seek partners of similar physical attractiveness to themselves.
3. Social demography, similarity in attitudes, complementarity.
4. Comparison level for alternatives: whether another relationship, or being single, would give more profit.
5. Angry or resentful, and dissatisfied.
6. Satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment.
7. Shared friends, a shared home or children.
8. The social phase.
9. An obstacle to starting a face-to-face relationship, such as appearance or shyness.
10. The hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996).
11. Entertainment-social, intense-personal, borderline-pathological.
12. Insecure-resistant.

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing the matching hypothesis as “people go for partners who look like them”. It is about similar levels of attractiveness.
• Getting the filter order wrong, or forgetting that the specification names social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
• Treating social exchange theory and equity theory as the same idea, with no point about fairness.
• Listing Rusbult’s three factors without saying they predict commitment, not satisfaction.
• Naming Duck’s phases without the threshold or a feature of each phase.
• Giving study names with no finding. A citation earns little without what was found and what it shows.
• Writing about online relationships without the three named issues: self-disclosure, deception and absence of gating.
• Evaluation that is generic (“lacks ecological validity”) instead of tied to a specific study or claim.
• In application questions, defining the theory without using the names and details in the scenario.
• Ignoring research methods: Paper 3 can ask about designs, ethics or calculations in a relationships context.

For the earlier attachment content that underpins the parasocial explanation, see the Paper 1 introductory revision notes. For linking social exchange theory to reinforcement, see the approaches revision notes.

Official syllabus

AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025: section 4.3.2 Relationships, and the Paper 3 assessment details in section 2.2. Check the current version at aqa.org.uk/7182.