Relationships Flashcards
L1: What does evolutionary psychology suggest about partner preference
It’s driven by sexual selection -> both males and females choose partners to maximise chances of reproduction.
L1: traits that maximise reproduction…
Strength, height, aggression etc and thus more likely to pass on genes responsible for success
L1: What is intra-sexual selection
Where members of one sex (usually male) compete with each other for sex leading to male-female dimorphism.
L1: what does anisogamy suggest for men
Suggest males best evolutionary strat is having as many partners as possible, as males compete with other males to presents themselves as the most fertile to other female fertile partners.
L1: mate guarding and cuckholdory
Mate guarding: guard female partners to prevent them mating with anyone else
Cuckholdory: fearful of having to raise another’s man’s child.
L1: what is inter-sexual selection
Where members of one sex (usually female) choose from available mates according to attractiveness
L1: what does anisogamy suggest for women
Suggest that best to be selective when choosing partner. They seek males who display traits of being healthy, high status, and resources. Thus the male should be able to protect and provide for the kids.
L1: evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations of Partner Preference (2+ 2-)
+ Buss (1989) conducted a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females reported valuing resource-based characteristics (such as occupation) whilst men valued good looks and preferred younger partners.
+ Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted a study where male and female psychology students were asked to approach fellow students of Florida State University (of the opposite sex) and ask them for one of three things; to go on a date, to go back to their apartment, or to go to bed with them. About 50% of both men and women agreed to the date, but whilst 69% of men agreed to visit the apartment and 75% agreed to go to bed with them, only 6% of women agreed to go to the apartment and 0% accepted the more intimate offer.
- The evolutionary approach is deterministic suggesting that we have little free-will in partner choice. However, everyday experience tells us we do have some control over our partner preferences.
- Evolutionary approaches to mate preferences are socially sensitive in that they promote traditional (sexist) views regarding what are ‘natural’ male and female behaviors which do not apply to modern society. Women are now more career orientated and independent therefore will not look for resourceful partners as much as they may have had to in decades past. Additionally, the availability of contraception means that evolutionary pressures are less relevant
L2: what is self disclosure
One of the factors which affects romance, and is the revealing of info, like thoughts and feelings to someone else
L2: self disclosure theory (Altman and Taylor 1973)
It’s a central concept in social penetration theory. This theory claims that by gradually revealing
emotions and experiences to their partner, couples gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust. Therefore, self-disclosure will increase
attraction. Then as trust builds, the breath and depth of self-disclosure increases
L2: reciprocal self-disclosure
Some people expect the same self-disclosure, and the more someone gives the more they expect back, which is known as reciprocal self disclosure.
L2: Evaluation of Self-Disclosure (3+ 2-)
+ Research conducted by Altman and Taylor (1973) supports the theory of self- disclosure. They found that self-disclosure on the first date is inappropriate and did not increase attraction levels. The person who was self-disclosing was seen as maladjusted and not very likeable.
+ Tal-Or (2015) conducted research which agrees with the fundamental concept of self-disclosure being a gradual process that can affect attraction for romantic relationships. Analysis of reality TV shows like Big Brother revealed that viewers did not like contestants who self-disclosed early on. They preferred the contestant who self-disclosed gradually.
+ Kito (2010) found research evidence to support the idea of self-disclosure across different cultures. Kito investigated Japanese and American students in different types of relationships, and found that self-disclosure was high for Japanese and American students in romantic relationships that were heterosexual.
- Sprecher (2013) found research evidence that the level of self-disclosure received is the best predictor of liking and loving, rather than the amount of self-disclosure given. This goes against the idea of reciprocal self-disclosure.
- It seems unlikely that attraction to a potential partner is based on self- disclosure alone. Self-disclosure might be an important element, but other factors are also needed in order to increase attraction, such as physical attraction, similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs.
L3: how can physical attractiveness vary
While its important to both men and women (especially men in short-term) it can vary across culture and time
L3: what’s the halo effect and how does it make us perceive physically attractive people
When general impression of someone is incorrectly formed from one characteristic alone (eg. Physical attractiveness).
Physically attractive ppl seen as more sociable, optimistic, trustworthy etc.
L3: self-fulfilling prophecy
People tend to behave positively toward physically attractive ppl and this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the physically attractive person behaves even more positively because of the positive attention they receive.
L3: Evaluation of halo effect (1+ 1-)
+ Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable than unattractive people. The halo
effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants found out that the physically attractive person had no expertise in politics.
- Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph. Participants also completed a MACHO
scale which measured sexist attitudes and behaviour. Found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were more influenced by
physical attractiveness. Those who scored low on the questionnaire did not value physical attractiveness. Therefore, the influence of physical
attractiveness is moderated by other factors (e.g. personality).
L3: what is the matching hypothesis
When we seek relationships, we seek partners with the same social desirability. Physical attraction is a major factor as its an accessible way to rate a potential partner.
Most ppl prefer forming a relationship with someone good looking, but to avoid rejection, people approach others who are of a similar level of attraction to themselves.
L3: Evaluation of The Matching Hypothesis (1+ 2-)
+ Fangold (1988) found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples. He established
a strong positive correlation between the partners’ ratings of physical attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis.
- Walster (1966) invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party. They were randomly matched to a partner; however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of physical attractiveness. At the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them. Contrary to the matching hypothesis students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.
- Sometimes a very physically attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person. Often a rebalance of traits will occur, whereby the less physically attractive person has some other traits to make up for their lack of physical attractiveness (e.g. being rich, having a high status or great personality). This is called complex matching whereby a very attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person.
L4: filter theory ( Kerchoff and David 1962)
Kerchoff and David (1962) proposed we use filtering to reduce the field of available partners down to a field of desirable partners. When we meet a potential partner we engage in three levels of filtering; social demography, similarity in attitude, and complementarity of needs. We tend to be attracted to those who pass through a series of filters.
L4: what does filter theory propose about how we choose people in short and long term
Short term: choose people who have similar attitudes to our own (similarity in attitude).
Long term: in the longer term, we choose people who complement our own traits (complementarity of needs).
L4: evaluation of filter theory (2+ 3-)
- (+) research from Taylor (2010) found evidence supporting filter theory. 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 married someone from own ethnic group, supporting social demography.
- (+) Hoyle (1993) supports the theory when looking at attitude similarities and shared attraction. Found that perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction stronger than attitude similarity. Tidwell tested this hypothesis in speed dating where people made quick decisions about attraction. Measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using questionnaire and found perceived similairty predicted romantic liking more than actual similarity.
- (-) Levinger (1970) conducted research using 330 couples and found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship was.
- (-) Filter theory has been criticised because it suggests that people are attracted to each other because they have similar social demography. Anderson (2003) found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction. At the start of the relationship, their attitudes were not so similar. This is called emotional convergence.
5 (-) Research using online dating has shown a lack of support for filter theory in that it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form. The internet has meant that there is a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone, and it is now easier to meet people who live far away, or who have a different ethnicity, social class and background. We might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits, and this is very apparent now, compared to the past (30 years ago).
L5: what is the social exchange theory
Economic theory, based on the idea of relationships are like a business, where we monitor rewards and costs. We all want maximum rewards from the relationship and minimum cost. The theory proposes individuals focus on getting more out than they put in.
L5: what are comparison levels?
We compare our present relationship to previous ones we’ve had.
We compare present partners with people around us who we could potentially have a relationship with, and that we look around for a ‘better deal’ if our current relationship isn’t satisfactory
L5: evaluation of social exchange theory, (3+ 3-)
- (+) Gottman (1992) found evidence that supports the theory. found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative
exchanges. In successful marriages where the relationship is happy, the ratio or positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1. - (+) Social Exchange Theory has practical applications. Integrated couples therapy (Jacobson, 2000) helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours and to decrease negative exchanges, whilst increasing positive exchanges. 66% of couples reported significant improvements in their relationship after receiving this form of therapy.
- (+) Different people perceive rewards and costs differently so this theory can account for individual differences in attraction.
- (-) Moghaddam (1998) has criticised the social exchange theory, as it is more applicable to individualistic cultures than collectivist cultures. The perceived costs and rewards of relationships might be very different from one culture to the next. Family values and compatibility might be more important rewards in collectivist cultures. In individualist cultures, rewards might be viewed as a partner buying expensive presents.
- (-) Critics of this theory disagree with the idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs. They argue that people only monitor rewards and costs once the relationship becomes dissatisfying. For instance, we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are already dissatisfied, not when we are happy and the relationship is successful.
- (-) The social exchange theory is rooted in the Behaviourist Approach as focus of relationship maintenance is about rewards and operant conditioning. But, some relationships have little rewards but many costs, (e.g. violent relationships) and yet but they still continue.
L6: was is the Equity theory model
- It’s an economic model based on idea of fairness for each partner
- Emphasises need for each partner to experience a balance between cost/effort and benefits/rewards
- distress felt in unfair relationship. Eg. If ppl over benefit and get more rewards then partner they may feel guilty
