From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Psychology > Pro-Antisocial Behaviour - Explanations of Aggression
UNDERSTUDIED RELATIONSHIPS: GAY AND LESBIAN
FORMATION
One problem for homosexuals is that it is difficult to actually recognise one another and form a relationship. A practical solution lies in venues which are specifically aimed at gay clients, such as gay bars and clubs.
SHAW – Highlights how the gay bar is one of the few places where gays can seek potential partners, as they can be certain that everyone in the bar is gay. He points out how some people come looking for friendship, some to drink and make conversation, and some come for sex.
Women face an additional problem when forming a relationship, as women tend to be more reactive than proactive when forming a relationship. Both potential partners therefore, may find it difficult to make the first move.
DAVIDSON – gay men tend to seek physically attractive features such as a nice face and body. They also seek male “status symbols” such as a masculine, well paid career.
HUSTON & SCHWARTZ – Lesbians on the other hand, are more attracted to personality, although more recently; they have started to seek self-sufficiency and strength in a long-term partner.
MAINTENANCE
A number of strategies that homosexuals use to maintain relationships have been identified. Research shows that;
Gay men: Minimise conflict and show a high degree of appreciation for each other. They use conversational strategies to “challenge” the other partner, which “keeps the relationship moving” (HUSTON & SCHWARTZ)
Lesbians: Strive to maintain an equitable balance of power and use conversational techniques to create emotional intimacy.
===DIFFICULTIES FACED BY SAME SEX COUPLES
Because homosexuals do not differ in appearance to heterosexuals, people assume they are straight. This allows gays to conceal their sexuality if they wish (closeted).
There are a number of problems in doing this however. “Closeted” gays may find it difficult to live a normal life, and can not enjoy being in an open relationship. They have to hide it and live in fear of being caught.
Foe many homosexuals, it is a lose-lose situation. If they remain closeted, they face problems, but if the come out, they face being marginalised and discriminated against. GREENE points out how gay people with shared custody arrangements with a previous heterosexual spouse may lose their visitation rights if the come out.
DIFFICULTIES OF FORMING & MAINTAINING HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
Growing up in a world that deems homosexuality as wrong or “deviant” makes it difficult for gays/lesbians to “come out” and form relationships.
The psychological effects of the media presenting gay relationships as superficial, unstable and problematic. Few gay relationships are portrayed as successful, which has an adverse effect on the formation/maintenance of homosexual relationships.
Psychologists such as MARKOWITZ and PEPLAU highlight how many therapists impose “heterosexual” models onto gay couples in counselling sessions. They assume that one is the “man of the relationship”
AO2 EVALUATION AND COMMENTARY
- Although research suggests that gay males use conversational barriers to avoid emotional intimacy and “challenge” one another, NARDI & SHERROD have found no difference between levels of openness, intimacy and self disclosure between gays and lesbians. This casts doubt on the notion that there are distinct differences between the way in which gays and lesbians form relationships.
- Maintenance strategies same for gay and straight males, as they are all socialised in the same way from birth.
- Research into this area has a heterosexual bias. GRIFFIN points out that researchers are ignorant to the fact that homosexual relationships may fall outside the traditional assumptions about heterosexual relationships. In other words, researchers are imposing a heterosexual frame of study onto a non-heterosexual phenomenon.
- Research does however, support the idea that there are distinct differences in relationships between gay people, and straight people. NARDI has found that gay people are more likely to stay friends after a break up, and whereas heterosexual sex leads to a relationship, homosexual sex is more likely to lead to a prolonged friendship.
- Research supports the belief that gay people face difficulties in maintaining relationships. Whereas straight people can openly express their affection, when gays do this they are stigmatised and abused. GREENE has found that over 90% of homosexuals have reported being victims of homophobic threats and abuse. However, it is argued that modern society is becoming more tolerant, and social norms have changed. This can be seen in the fact that homosexuality used to be illegal, but now it is not and is more widely accepted.
Understudied relationships - Gay/lesbian
- Differences in formation – gay males tend to follow a liberal “sex first” strategy. Lesbians – reactive rather than proactive.
- Shaw – gaybars are one of the only places where homosexuals can meet/form r/ships (drink, sex, socialise).
- Different gay/lesbo maintenance strategies. Huston & Schwartz - Gays show high degree of appreciation for other partner, use conversational strategies to “challenge” partner – keeps r’ship moving.
- Lesbians use convo strategies to maintain emotional intimacy and attempt to create an equitable balance of power.
- Interpersonal attraction – Davidson gay men seek “status symbols” such as a masculine career and physical attractiveness. Huston & Schwartz – lesbians are more attracted to personality, self-sufficiency and strength.
- Homosexual r’ships not as durable as heterosexual ones. Studies show that on average, homosexual couples are approximately 20% more likely to break up after two years than straight couples.
- + Supporting notion of homosexual differences in r’ship dissolution, Nardi found that gays and lesbians tend to remain friends after a relationship, whereas heterosexuals do not. Also, gay sex = close friendship, straight sex = starts a serious r’ship.
- - Research has a heterosexual bias. Griffin argues that homosexual r’ships may fall outside of what is normally seen as “typical” and important in a r’ship. Homosexual r’ships may be completely different, and researchers may impose a “straight” frame of research onto a “non-straight” phenomenon.
- - Markowitz/Peplau - An implication of this bias is that psychologists and r’ship counsellors tend to assume one partner “wears the pants” and the other is the female.
- - May be understudied, and gays face a number of problems, but it is argued that this is changing, as society is becoming more tolerant (1970s – gay illegal).
- - Maintenance strategies may not be distinctly different, as everyone is socialised in the same way from birth, regardless of sexuality.
- + Greene supports idea that homosexuals face difficulties in maintaining r’ships. Although straight couples can openly express their affection, when a gay couple try and do this they are often faced with discrimination. 90% of gay men claim to have been victims of homophobia (attacked etc).
- - Increasing research into this area means that it may not be understudied in the near future.
Computer mediated communication (CMC)
- Nature of CMC r’ships different – often viewed as inferior to FTF because of the absence of cues which help r’ship form.
- Culnan & Markus – “reduced cues theory”. Lack of cues such as body language/voice tone creates a “social vacuum”. Leads to a “deindividuation” effect. This anonymity leads to uninhibited behaviour such as “flaming” (verbal attack on a forum member).
- However, such anonymity may make initiating r’ships easier. Sprecher & McKinney point out that in FTF, there are “barriers” (shyness, lack of self-esteem). CMC is changing this. Because people have total control over how they present themselves, some of the traditional “barriers” are diminishing.
- Women normally reactive, not proactive. More likely to make the first move using CMC. Christ & Scharlott have found that the initiation of r’ships on internet matchmaking sights is significantly different to FTF.
- CMC also provides a context for sexual relationships. A “wired” top ten survey of AOL chatrooms shows that 3 were for “swingers”, 5 were for “straight sex”, and the other two were for homosexual sex.
- Shaw – gay internet chatrooms similar to gay bars for initiating r’ships. Found that gay males spend 10-15 hours per week on gay chatrooms.
- - Shaw’s study used an unrepresentative sample of 12 males.
- - The social identity model of deindividuation effect offers an alternative to the reduced cues theory. Rather than increasing uninhibited behaviour, CMC may reinforce existing norms. Research shows that people on chatrooms are inclined to accept in-group norms, and reject out-group norms. This model has been applied to social categories such as gender and nationality. When this aspect of identity is present, people behave in terms of the existing norms tied to that identity.
- + Benefit of CMC is that partners do not have to engage in “entrainment” (FTF couples have to synchronise their activities so they’re co-present. CMC’ers don’t thus giving them greater freedom)
- - CMC has its disadvantages. Over reliance on CMC may hinder the development of vital interpersonal skills. Overuse may also be a problem, and the fact that “internet addiction disorder” is now a recognised psychological disorder in the USA highlights the possible dangers of CMC.
- - Because people can ultimately “fake” who they are, this may lead to internet abuse (moral panics – child grooming).
- + CMC allows for asynchronous communication (people can carefully pre-plan their responses, more socially desirable).
- + Although many believe that CMC is inferior to FTF, its potential should not be underestimated. Wilkins studied “Presbynet”, an online forum for the Presbyterian Church. Found that friendships were just as strong.
Comments
