P3: Relationships Flashcards
Describe Sexual Selection and Human Reproductive Behaviour
Anisogamy: differences between male/female sex cells
(Related to mating strategies)
INTER-SEXUAL SELECTION(Females)
Selection of mates between sexes
Quality over Quantity ∵ of time investment
Impact: Runaway process(females prefer tall guys= genetic trait passed on)
INTRA-SEXUAL SELECTION(Males)
Selection of mates within sexes
Quantity over Quality ∵ females limited ∴higher chance of reproduction if they mate many
Impact: Adaptive traits passed on(e.g. aggression, youthful preference)
Evaluate Sexual Selection and Human Reproductive Behaviour
+ Evidence(Intra-sexual): survey 10,000ppl= females value resources.Males=reproductive capacity ∴ supports differences due to anisogamy/partner preferences
+ Evidence(Inter-sexual):Test= students ask others for 1night stand=0 females=yes.75% males=yes ∴ females=choosy/prefer Quality vs Quantity
- Social/cultural influences: Preference impacted by social norms/cultural practices(Evolution).But China=same 25yr ∴Evolution/culture must be considered
Explain the factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure
Self-disclosure: Revealing intimate info to another person(key in development of relations)
SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY(SPT)
Gradual process of revealing inner self to someone
Personal info= trust. Must be reciprocate/received sensitivity to progress
-Penetration leads to Development:
Begin of relation: Breadth=narrow ∵too much info=offputting
Development:(penetrate into lives) more layers revealed ∴ more likely to reveal intimate info
RECIPROCITY OF SELF-DISCLOSURE
Breath/Depth/Reciprocity = development
Evaluate the factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure
+ Research evidence: Correlation between measures of satisfaction/self-disclosure in hetro couples∴ key concept in romantic relation
- IRL application: 57% gay men/women=self-disclosure= maintenance strat ∴can deepen relations= importance! can support ppl with relationship issues
- Cultural differences: US=disclose more sexual thoughts VS China. Same ending(satisfaction) but different process ∴ SPT= limited/ cannot generalise
- Links to breakdown: Duck’s phase model=couples discuss intimate detail= attempt to save relation ∴ self-disclosure ≠linked to positive development in relations
Describe Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
Symmetry: symmetrical face= more attractive∵signal of genetic fitness(cannot fake) ∴ likely passed on=symmetry perpetuated
Neotenous: (baby face)trigger protective/caring instincts(related to formation of attachments in infancy)
-Initial attraction= important after formation stage of relationship(post-marriage)
HALO EFFECT(how physical attraction generalised)
Preconceived ideas about attributes of attractive ppl(Whats beautiful=good)
FOUND: attractive ppl=rated kind, strong, sociable, successful consistantly
MATHCING HYPOTHESIS
Suggests we choose partners of similar Lvl of attractiveness to self ∴must assess own value
-Compromise(fear of rejection) by matching attractiveness
Evaluate Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
+ Research support(Halo effect): attractive ppl rated=politically knowledgeable/competent vs unattractive ppl.Implications=politicians selected ∵ looks
- Individual differences: High score on MACHO scale(sexist attitudes)= influence by attraction. Low scores=less affected ∴effects=not as significant for all
- Mixed support(matching hyp): OG study ≠support.Ppl preferred most attractive. BUT Meta-analysis of IRL= correlation of attraction rating between them
- Online dating: online daters prefer ppl more attractive than self. Involves IRL dating choices ≠ match hypothesis ∴ ≠ explain preference in a useful way/temporal validity
Describe and Explain Factors affecting attraction: Filter Theory
Attempts to explain attraction in terms of attitudes/personalities.
1st - considers field of availables
2nd - Select from field of desirables via 3 filters
SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY (1ST LV FILTER)
-Social class/education/Geographical location. Likelier=meaningful encounters nearby with ppl physically close/share features with you(social class)
-ppl too different/far= filtered out
SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES (2ND LV FILTER)
-Sharing beliefs/values (for 18months/less)
Law of attraction(similarity=mutual attraction)
COMPLEMENTARITY (3RD LV FILTER)
-Partners meet each others needs
Idea of making whole/feeling of togetherness
Evaluate Factors affecting attraction: Filter theory
+ Research support:IRL= similarities between partners=important at start. Complimentary of needs importance over time ∴2 filters supported
- Failure to replicate: lack of replicability=social change/difficulties in defining depth of relation ∵assumed 18months=committed ≠in other cultures
- Direction of cause/effect: cohabiting=emotional convergence/similar overtime/attitude alignment ∴ similarities maybe effect not cause of relationships
- Temporal Validity: Online dating grows, social demography=less important ∴dating outside of culture=easier. Not predicted by model ∴model=old?
Describe and Explain theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Assumes relation guided by minimax principle (economic terms) Satisfaction judged in terms of profit.
e.g. Costs: loss of time, stress
e.g. Rewards: sex, praise, companionship
Opportunity cost: Recognising investing in her= cannot invest elsewhere at once
COMPARISON LV (CL) (measure of profit)
Reward LV what we expect?, determined via relationship experience/social norms
Higher self-esteem=higher CL
COMPATISON LV FOR ALTERNATIVES(CLalt)
More rewards/fewer costs in a different relationship?
(Always ALTs, but costs > rewards in current= ALT = attractive. If satisfied = mayn’t notice others)
4 STAGES OF A RELATIONSHIP
1) Sampling stage: exploring cost/rewards via experimenting/observing others
2) Bargaining stage: Negotiate costs/rewards of relation
3) Commitment stage: Relation= stable. Costs reduced/ rewards increased
4) Institutionalisation stage: partners=settled ∵norms established
Evaluate theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory (SET)
- Assumption all relations are exchanged based: Work collages=maybe. Communal(romantic)= giving/receiving rewards without thinking of profit. Tallying= suspicion/distaste ∴ not suitable explanation for all
- Equity not considered: ignores fact= fairness/equity maybe desired. Equitable= more satisfied vs over/under-benefitting ∴limited/support by proportion of findings
- Individual differences: Study=operationalise rewards/costs. Reality. Costs/rewards= subjective. Unclear LV of CL/CLalt require before relation=threatened ∴concepts=hard to quantify
- Artificial tasks: study often=make-shift partners for study.IRL partners ≠ support SET as much ∴ lack of IRL support=not valid
Describe and Explain theories of romantic relationships: Equity Theory
Equity = fairness.(of ratios, regardless of size)
Most ppl= need for equity in relationships
Both under/over-benefiting= dissatisfaction
Under: Least satisfied. feelings= anger/resentment
Over: Less dissatisfied. Feelings= discomfort/shame
CONSEQUENCES OF INEQUITY
Greater perceived inequity=greater dissatisfaction
Strong positive correlation between 2
-Changes in perceived equity: Start of relation= normal to contribute more. If no change dissatisfaction will occur
DEALING WITH INEQUITY
-Under-benefitting=work hard to fix, if salvageable
-Change in cognition: Revision of perceptions of rewards/costs ∴feels more equitable.
NOTE: if perceptions of reward/cost revised abuse can become accepted as norm
Evaluate Theories of romantic relationships: Equity Theory
+ Research support: Newly-weds=most satisfied when considered equitable ∴profit ≠key issue but equity ∴ control concept=support. Good validity
- Individual differences: some ppl less sensitive to equity. Benevolent ppl: happy to give more VS Entitleds ppl: belief=deserve more ∴ equity=far from universal trait
- Cultural differences: Individualist: most satisfied=equitable. Collectivist: satisfied=over-benefitting. True for both gender ∴ social/cultural reasons ∴equity ≠ key everywhere ∴ limited
- Contradictory Evidence: Longitudinal study= equity ≠ increase over time. Variables.e.g. Self-disclosure appeared more important= Strong critic ∵ used IRL couples
Describe and Explain theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s investment model
Extension of SET. Commitment depends on satisfaction LV/comparison with alternatives/investment size.
-Satisfying relation=getting more vs expected given social norms.
-Investment: Resources associated with romantic relationship. Relation end=investment lost
(2 TYPES)
-Intrinsic: Resources put directly into relation(e.g.energy)
-Extrinsic: closely associated(previously not featured.e.g.kids)
High LV satisfaction/unattractive alts/increasing investments= committed partner
COMMITMENT VS SATISFACTION
commitment > satisfied ∴know why dissatisfied partner stays ∵investment=high ∴likely to try to fix/repair
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE MECHANISMS
-Promotion(accommodation)
-Others interest first(sacrifice)
-Forgiveness of past
-Positive illusions
-Derogation of alternatives(negative about tempting alts)
Evaluate Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s model
+ Research support: CLalt/satisfaction/investment= predictors of commitment= stable/long. Regardless of sex/hetro/homo-relationship ∴maybe claim=universal
+ Explains abusive relations: girls=most investment/low CLalt=likely returns to abusive partners. Satisfaction concept ≠explain ∴explanation power
- Oversimplification of investment: e.g.early relation=little investment. Invest in future plans=motivate partners to commit ∴OG limited. More than resources already put in
+ Methodology: Self-report techs used. Good ∵investment/CLalt= subjective ∴ good validity vs e.g.experimental research
Describe theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model
Model of relationship breakdown. 4 stages
1) INTRA-PSYCHIC PHASE
-Threshold:’can’t stand this anymore’=something needs to change. Dissatisfied with current state.
Focus on partners shortcomings. Usually private, may share thoughts with trusted friend, weighing pros/cons
2) DYADIC PHASE
-Threshold:’Justified in withdrawing’=Decided on ending=discuss with partner abt dissatisfactions.
Varies in length/hostility/anxiety
3) SOCIAL PHASE
-Threshold:’I mean it’. Partner= seek support particularly from joint friends. Encouraged to choose side/or try to prevent it. Once news public=no return.
4) GRAVE-DRESSING PHASE
-Threshold:’inevitable’=prep story of ending for wide consumption. Necessary to move on
