AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Relationships – Study Guide

This guide covers the Relationships topic of AQA A-level Psychology (7182), as printed in section 4.3.2 of the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. Relationships is one of the three topics in option 1 of Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, where it is assessed in Section B. It is A-level content only.

Course links: AQA A-level Psychology hub and AQA A-level Psychology checklist. Condensed version: Relationships revision notes. Test yourself: Relationships practice questions.

Coverage table

Syllabus reference (4.3.2)	What you must know or be able to do	Where assessed
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships	Self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity	Paper 3, Section B
Theories of romantic relationships	Social exchange theory; equity theory; Rusbult’s investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment	Paper 3, Section B
Relationship breakdown	Duck’s phase model: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases	Paper 3, Section B
Online relationships	Self-disclosure, use of deception, effects of absence of gating	Paper 3, Section B
Parasocial relationships	Levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption addiction model and the attachment theory explanation	Paper 3, Section B

How Paper 3 is set up

The specification prints these rules for Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology:

• What’s assessed: “Compulsory content 8 above” (Issues and debates in Psychology) and “Optional content, one from option 1, 9–11, one from option 2, 12–14, one from option 3, 15–17”.
• Option 1 is 9 Relationships, 10 Gender and 11 Cognition and development.
• Assessed: written exam, 2 hours, 96 marks in total, 33.3% of A-level.
• Section A: multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks.
• Section B: “one topic from option 1, 9–11 above, multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. Sections C and D do the same for options 2 and 3.

The specification also says research methods and mathematical skills are assessed in Paper 3, so expect methods or calculation questions set in a relationships context. Your teacher will confirm which options your school teaches.

Factors affecting attraction

Self-disclosure

Self-disclosure means revealing personal information about yourself to another person. In social penetration theory, Altman and Taylor (1973) argued that relationships develop as disclosure increases in breadth (the range of topics) and depth (how personal the topics are). Reis and Shaver (1988) stressed reciprocity: intimacy grows when one partner discloses and the other responds with understanding and discloses in return.

Evaluation. Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found that self-disclosure was positively correlated with satisfaction in dating couples. This is correlational: satisfied couples may simply disclose more. Norms about what to share differ across cultures, so the pattern may not be universal.

Physical attractiveness and the matching hypothesis

Physical attractiveness matters partly through the halo effect: Dion et al. (1972) found that people rated photographs of attractive individuals as having more socially desirable personality traits. The matching hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966) states that people seek partners of similar attractiveness to themselves. They want the most attractive partner possible but balance this against the risk of rejection, so they settle for a realistic match.

Evaluation. Murstein (1972) found that judges rated the photographs of real couples as more similar in attractiveness than randomly paired photographs, which supports matching. Feingold’s (1988) meta-analysis also found that romantic partners tend to be similar in attractiveness. However, in the original “computer dance” study, Walster et al. (1966) found that the attractiveness of the date predicted liking, whatever the participant’s own attractiveness. Taylor et al. (2011) studied online daters and found people contacted partners more attractive than themselves. So matching may describe who ends up together, not who people approach. People may also trade attractiveness for other assets such as status (complex matching).

Filter theory

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) proposed that we narrow down the field of availables to a field of desirables through three filters, in order:

1. Social demography – factors such as where people live, their education and social class decide who we are likely to meet at all.
2. Similarity in attitudes – early in a relationship, sharing beliefs and values matters most.
3. Complementarity – later, partners meet each other’s different needs (for example, one likes to care for others and the other likes to be cared for).

Kerckhoff and Davis found that, in student couples, attitude similarity predicted becoming closer in shorter relationships (under about 18 months) and complementarity in longer ones.

Evaluation. Levinger et al. (1970) did not replicate this pattern, which questions its reliability. Online contact means social demography may now filter less strongly. Similarity may also grow during a relationship, so it can be a result rather than a cause.

Worked example paragraph

Discuss the matching hypothesis. “The matching hypothesis states that people seek partners of similar attractiveness to avoid rejection. Murstein (1972) found real couples were rated as more similar in attractiveness than random pairs. However, established couples show who stays together, not who people first approach. In Walster et al.’s (1966) dance study, people preferred the most attractive date regardless of their own looks. So matching may be an outcome of competition rather than a deliberate choice.”

Theories of romantic relationships

Social exchange theory

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) proposed that people try to maximise rewards (company, sex, support) and minimise costs (time, stress, money) in a relationship. Profit is rewards minus costs. Two comparisons decide whether we stay:

• Comparison level (CL): the reward we feel we deserve, based on past relationships and wider expectations.
• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt): whether another relationship, or being single, would give more profit. We stay if the current relationship beats the alternatives.

They also described four stages: sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation.

Evaluation. Rewards and costs are hard to define and measure, and differ between people. Clark and Mills (1979) distinguished communal relationships, where partners meet each other’s needs without keeping score, from exchange relationships, where people do track what they give and get. Romantic relationships are usually communal, so the theory may fit them poorly. Cause is also unclear: people may notice alternatives because they are already dissatisfied.

Equity theory

Walster et al. (1978) argued that people want fairness, not the most profit. Equity means the ratio of what each partner puts in to what each gets out feels balanced. A partner who gets more than they give (over-benefited) may feel guilt. A partner who gets less (under-benefited) may feel anger and resentment, and is usually the more dissatisfied. Inequity motivates partners to restore balance, by changing what they contribute or how they perceive the balance.

Evaluation. Utne et al. (1984) found that married couples who saw their relationship as equitable reported more satisfaction, which supports the theory. Against this, Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that equity did not predict which dating relationships lasted, whereas other factors, such as self-disclosure, did. People also differ in how much they care about fairness, so the theory may not apply to everyone.

Rusbult’s investment model

Rusbult (1983) argued that commitment depends on three factors:

• Satisfaction – rewards are high and costs low compared with one’s comparison level.
• Comparison with alternatives – how attractive other options, including being single, are.
• Investment – what would be lost if the relationship ended. Intrinsic investments are put directly in (time, effort, self-disclosure). Extrinsic investments arise from the relationship (shared friends, a home, children). Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) added investment in planned futures.

High satisfaction, poor alternatives and large investment produce high commitment, and commitment, rather than satisfaction alone, predicts whether a relationship lasts.

Evaluation. Rusbult followed students in dating relationships over several months; satisfaction, alternatives and investment together predicted commitment, and commitment predicted staying together. Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis of 52 studies found the three factors together explained nearly two-thirds of the variance in commitment. Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied women who had used a refuge after abuse: those with fewer alternatives and greater investments were more likely to return. A limitation is that the model relies on self-report, and “investment” is hard to measure objectively.

Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck (1982) described breakdown as a series of phases, each triggered when a threshold is reached:

1. Intra-psychic phase – “I can’t stand this any more”. One partner privately broods on dissatisfaction and may confide in a diary or a trusted person.
2. Dyadic phase – “I’d be justified in withdrawing”. The partners confront each other and discuss the problems. The relationship may be repaired here.
3. Social phase – “I mean it”. The breakdown becomes public; friends and family take sides, give advice or try to help repair it.
4. Grave dressing phase – “It’s now inevitable”. Each partner creates a story of the breakup that protects their reputation.

Rollie and Duck (2006) later added a resurrection phase, in which people apply what they have learned to future relationships.

Evaluation. Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that students who had recently broken up often reported personal growth, which fits the later phases. The model suggests repair strategies matched to each phase, such as better communication in the dyadic phase. However, it describes the order of events rather than explaining why breakdown starts. Research is mostly retrospective self-report, and the social phase may reflect individualist Western relationships.

Worked example paragraph

Evaluate Rusbult’s investment model. “A strength of the investment model is that it explains why people stay when satisfaction is low. Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that women who returned to an abusive partner after leaving a refuge had greater investments and poorer alternatives. Social exchange theory predicts they would leave, since costs exceed rewards. The investment model therefore has more explanatory power, although its factors are measured by self-report.”

Online relationships

The specification names three issues: self-disclosure, use of deception and the effects of absence of gating.

Self-disclosure online. Two theories make opposite predictions. Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986) argues that computer-mediated communication lacks cues such as facial expression and tone, which leads to deindividuation and less self-disclosure. The hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) argues the reverse: online, people control what they reveal (selective self-presentation) and have time to plan messages, so disclosure is faster and deeper, and relationships can become intense quickly. Joinson (2001) found that people disclosed more in computer-mediated conversations than face-to-face, and that visual anonymity increased disclosure, which supports the hyperpersonal model.

Deception. Online profiles make misrepresentation easy. Toma et al. (2008) compared online daters’ profiles with their measured height, weight and age. Most participants misreported at least one of these, but usually by small amounts. Men tended to overstate height and women to understate weight. Deception seems common but modest, perhaps because people expect to meet face-to-face.

Absence of gating. A gate is an obstacle that can stop a relationship starting face-to-face, such as appearance, shyness, a stammer or social anxiety. Online, these gates are absent at first. McKenna et al. (2002) found that people who were lonely or socially anxious were more likely to form close relationships online, and many of these relationships lasted.

Evaluation. Video calls and photo-based apps now supply many cues that reduced cues theory says are missing, so older findings from text-based chat may not apply today.

Worked example paragraph

Explain one effect of the absence of gating. “Without gates such as shyness, a socially anxious person is judged on what they say, not how they look or sound. McKenna et al. (2002) found lonely and socially anxious people were more likely to form close online relationships. However, the same absence of cues makes honesty harder to judge, increasing the scope for deception.”

Parasocial relationships

A parasocial relationship is a one-sided relationship in which a person feels they know a media figure who does not know them. Horton and Wohl (1956) introduced the term.

Levels. Research using the Celebrity Attitude Scale, developed by McCutcheon and colleagues, identifies three levels:

• Entertainment-social – celebrities are a source of fun and conversation with friends.
• Intense-personal – more intense, compulsive feelings; the person may think of the celebrity as a soulmate.
• Borderline-pathological – uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviour, such as being willing to do something illegal for the celebrity.

Absorption addiction model. McCutcheon et al. (2002) proposed that parasocial relationships can compensate for gaps in a person’s own life. Absorption means becoming preoccupied with a celebrity to build a sense of identity. Addiction means needing ever stronger involvement to keep up the satisfaction, which can push a person towards the borderline-pathological level.

Attachment theory explanation. This links to Bowlby’s idea that early attachment forms an internal working model of relationships (see the Paper 1 introductory topics guide). People with insecure-resistant attachment are predicted to be most likely to form parasocial relationships, because these meet unmet needs without the risk of rejection. People with insecure-avoidant attachment are predicted to be less likely, because they avoid intimacy.

Evaluation. Maltby et al. (2005) linked intense-personal celebrity worship to poorer body image in female adolescents. Cole and Leets (1999) found insecure-resistant individuals were more likely to form parasocial relationships, supporting the attachment explanation. But McCutcheon et al. (2006) found no link between attachment type and the tendency to form intense parasocial relationships. Most research is correlational self-report, so cause and effect are unclear.

Worked example paragraph

Evaluate the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships. “The explanation predicts that insecure-resistant people form parasocial relationships to meet unmet needs, and Cole and Leets (1999) supported this. However, McCutcheon et al. (2006) found no link. Attachment is usually measured in adulthood by self-report, so the link to infant attachment is indirect. The explanation is plausible but not firmly established.”

Common errors

• Confusing CL and CLalt: CL is about what you expect from relationships; CLalt is about whether something else would be better.
• Writing that equity means equal inputs. Equity is about a fair ratio; partners can give different things.
• Describing Duck’s phases as causes of breakdown rather than a description of the process.
• Treating complementarity as the first filter. The order is social demography, similarity in attitudes, then complementarity.
• Saying online relationships always involve less self-disclosure. That is only the reduced cues view.
• Naming attachment types without explaining why each makes parasocial relationships more or less likely.
• Covering evolutionary explanations of partner preference. They are not printed in section 4.3.2 of Version 1.4; check with your teacher if an older textbook includes them.

Where to go next

Build issues and debates into your evaluation. The approaches guide links social exchange theory to reinforcement. Then use the revision notes and the practice questions.

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.