Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > Relationships > Flashcards

Relationships Flashcards

(61 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

AO1 evolutionary relationships

A

Sexual selection
Anisogamy - diffs between male and female gametes, gives rise to types of sexual selection
intersexual selection : quality or quantity
intrasexual selection : competition within each sex leads to dimorphism (males and females diff)
Sexy sons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What did Trivers point out (evolutionary)

A

females make greater investment into offspring, consequences more serious > more selective causes runaway process(desired traits increase in population)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was Fisher’s hypothesis

A

Sexy sons hypothesis - genes today are ones that aided successful reproduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Clark and Hatfield support inter sexual

A

m + f psych students ask on campus to go to bed
75% m agree, no f agree > f choosier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

One strategy adaptive to all too simplistic (sexual selection)

A

length of eel that partners want to establish shld be accounted
Buss + Schmitt: sexual strategies theory > m + f similar strategies in long term rel, choosy
accounts for context of rel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Buss evidence support intra sexual

A

survey questions > f value resource-related characteristics, m value phys attractive > consistent sex diffs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

AO3 evolutionary

A

Clark and Hatfield 75% m
simplistic one strategy
Buss survey
social + cultural factors ignored, women role in workplace
homosexual, reproduction not primary aim H Lawson : prefs still differ between homo m + f

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Altman and Taylor - self disclosure

A

Social penetration theory , onion metaphor, penetrate layers - reciprocation required, develops rel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Breadth and depth of disclosure

A

breadth : low risk info revealed early e.g football team support
depth : high risk as rel progresses e.g secret

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Reis and Shaver - SD balance

A

reciprocity of disclosure important
Balance of self disclosure -> feelings of intimacy -> deepens rel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Research support social penetration
Sprecher and Hendrick

A

correlation between satisfaction + SD > more satisfied more SD
Later, Sprecher: rel more satisfying when take turns SD (reciprocity) > ^ valid

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

SD very much correlational

A

e.g Sprecher + Hendrick, other direction or third variable, not causal link
H- still shows relationship between SD + satisfaction , cannot manipulate relationship/ variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

RWA SD

A

Help ppl who want to improve rel, increase intimacy use SD
Haas + Stafford: 57% homo m+w SD main way deepened rel
Help less skilled partners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Tang, cultural diffs of SD

A

no diffs satisfaction US vs China but US SD more
Limited theory based on western cultures, not generalisable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ducks model as limitation of SD

A

partners SD more (dyadic phase) but rel continues to breakdown, does not increase satisfaction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Physical attractiveness AO1

A

facial symmetry sign of genetic fitness
Halo effect - attribute +ve qualities to attractive person
matching hypothesis - similar attractiveness level
Computer dance - chose most attractive partner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the computer dance

A

students rated objectively by researchers, told they were matched w partner - most liked partners were most attractive, not take own attractiveness into account
H - replication pps chose partners who matched them on attractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Palmer and Peterson support halo effect

A

Phys attractive ppl rated more politically knowledgable - persisted even when pps knew they had no expertise
danger for democracy, politicians more suitable due to attractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Phys att supports evolutionary processes + Cunningham

A

Ethnic groups found same features attractive - consistent across cultures, sign of genetic fitness, evolutionary (sexual selection)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Taylor RWA against matching hyp

A

activity logs of online dating website - tended to seek dates w person more attractive - undermines ext validity matching hyp
H - only potential partners on dating website

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Feingold - phys att support matching hyp

A

Correlation ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Indiv diffs limitation of phys att

A

not attach importance to phys att
pref other characteristics - reduces partner pref to phys att
e,g personality more important
not generalisable, partial exp for some rel
H - real couples more similar Phys att than random in a study - Phys att is a factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the filter theory (factors affecting attractiveness)

A

Devised by Kerkchoff and Davis
Not everyone available is desirable
3 factors act as filters to narrow down to field of desirables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

3 filters in filter theory

A

1 - social demography > e.g age, location, determine likelihood of meeting > outcome is homogamy (form rel w someone socially + culturally similar)
2 - similarity of attitudes > agreement on attitudes and basic values predict stable rel, diff ppl filtered out
3 - complementarity > of needs, ensures needs are met

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Kerkchoff and Davis research , filter theory
Longitudinal study, 94 couples from USA partners did questionnaire before and after 7 months short term: similarity of attitudes and values predict how close they felt long term (18months+) : complementarity of needs predictive how close they felt
26
research support for filter theory H - point
Kerkchoff + Davis study supports predictions from order of filters suggested H - direction causality, cohabiting couples became more similar over time
27
Filter theory lack validity, Levinger
diff to replicate due to social change in dating patterns + diff defining depth of rel by length (18months) together longer more committed?
28
Montoya limitation similarity in filter theory
meta analysis 313 studies, perceived similarity stronger predictor of att matters less if actually similar or believe maybe perceive more similarity as become more att > effect of att not cause H - still shows importance of similarity perceive or real
29
Complementarity not central to long term rel - Markey + Markey
Lesbian couples of equal dominance most satisfied mean time 4.5 yrs together similarity of needs not complementarity - not what theory predicts H - still highlights one of central assumptions, similarity important
30
why does filter theory lack temporal validity
transport links more than 60yrs ago + attitudes of who we can date has changed > reduce importance of social demographic variables, field of availables larger and less similar to ourselves less homogamy
31
What is the social exchange theory and who
Proposed by Thibault + Kelley, beh in rel reflect economic assumptions of exchange, minimax principle, opportunity cost of rel comparison level - amount of reward you believe you deserve, High CL rel worth pursuing CL alt - alternatives more rewarding?
32
Stages of relationship development, social exchange theory
Sampling - experiment rewards, observe others bargaining - negotiate most profitable, exchange costs/rewards commitment - sources predictable, rel stable institutionalisation - norms of rew/costs established
33
# Kurdek research support SET
couples did questionnaire measure commitment +SET variables most committed perceived most reward, fewest costs, alternatives unattractive first study to show SET variables independent from each other match predicitons of SET, inc validity Further - also included gay + lesbian couples COUNTER - studies ignore equity, limited exp
34
Cause effect issues w SET
SET argues no profit causes dissatisfaction, but could be dissatisfcation causes to monitor costs Argyle : we don't monitor costs till after dissatisfied
35
How are concepts of SET vague
impossible to empirically test SET reward/cost hard to define e.g loyalty not reward for all
36
Equity theory AO1
fairness and balance, criticism of SET Walster: both partners level of profit roughly same unequity cause dissatisfaction, trade-offs made underbenefitted e.g anger overbenefitted e.g guilt
37
Consequenecs of inequity
Correlation between inequity and dissatisfcation Changes in perceived equity as time goes on - more at start of rel Dealing with it : motivated to make it equitable. Revise rewards/costs so rel feels more equitable, cost seen as norm.
38
Studies of real world rel support equity (comp to SET)
Utne : 2 self report scales 118 couples perceived as equitable more staisfied than under/over benefitting equity should be concern for couples
39
Equity over time Berg and McQuinn
Equity not inc over time as wld be predicted by theory no diff in equity of rel that ended vs continued other variables more important > dec validity of equity theory
40
Cultural limitations of equity theory
not apply to all cultures Aumer-Ryan : diffs in link between equity and satisfaction Indiv most satisf when equitable, collect when overbenefitting - only applies to some cultures H - Takano + Osaka no longer indiv vs collec exist so Aumer-Ryan findings not valid limitation
41
Indiv diffs, Huseman, equity theory
Huseman - some less concerned w equity than norm Benevolents - underbenefit contribute more Entitleds - deserve to overbenefit dont feel guilty Less concern over equity not universal
42
Cause effect issues of equity theory
monitoring contributions sign of dissatisfaction -> notice inequites, become more dissatisfied : 'cycle of misery'
43
3 factors of investment model
1 - satisfaction : rewards to costs + fulfillment of needs 2 - CLalt : other rel or no rel more attractive 3 - Investment : anything we would lose if rel ended - Intrinsic = put directly into rel e.g energy + money - Extrinsic = brought into life through rel e.g mutual friends
44
Rel maintenence mechanisms rusbult investment model
E.g willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness, ridiculing alternatives
45
Stages to Duck's phase model
1 - Intra psychic : cog processes weigh up pros and cons/ alternatives 2 - dyadic : interpersonal processes, confrontations 3 - social : social networks, breakup made public, gossip, momentum from social forces 4 - Grave dressing : aftermath, spin favourable story to maintain +ve reputation
46
AO3 of ducks phase model
+ RWA > counselling e.g dyadic communication - research based on indiv cultures, collect rel obligatory less likelt end - incomplete exp. fifth phase (resurrection) > complex - Early phases less understood, retrospective research
47
How does reduced cues (Sproull and Kiesler) lead to less SD (virtual relationships)
less cues > de-individuation > disinhibition (blunt) > less SD
48
What is the hyperpersonal model, Walther, virtual rel
sender control manipulate self image in idealised way hyperhonest or hyperdishonest receiver +ve impression, reinforce Anonymity less accountable for beh
49
Absence of gating in virtual rel
Obstacle to forming rel e.g physical unattractive or stammer rel develop more as virtual rel
50
Ruppel limitation of hyperpersonal model
meta analysis, more freq, breadth, depth SD in FtF H - used self report
51
SD is different in FtF and virtual (counter ruppel)
Q's direct and intimate (hyperhonest) online, small talk in FtF Manipulate self image, hyperdishonest - support hyperhonest/ dishonest and diffs between FtF and virtual
52
Virtual rel benefit socially anxious ppl
Research found they were able to express their 'true selves' 71% lasted 2+ years online, 49% in real world > absence of gating beneficial
53
Walther limitation virtual rel
Multimodal ,not either virtual or real world (bit of both) disclose virtually influenced by offline interactions
54
Levels of parasocial relationships
Maltby: 1 - entertainment-social: social interaction 2 - Intense-personal: obsessive thoughts 3 - Borderline-pathological: uncontrollable fantasies, illegal acts
55
Absorption addiction model parasocial
Deficiencies in life, parasocial rel escape from reality Absorption: seek fulfillment, attention on celeb + identify w them Addiction: increase dose for satisfaction > extreme beh
56
Attachment theory explanation to parasocial rel
Insecure-resistant most likely - seek to have unfulfilled needs met w no threat of rejection
57
McCutcheon support for levels para rel CAS = celebrity attitude scale
pps w intense or borderline high anx in rel (used CAS), entertainment not celebrity worshippers into categories based off actual beh - inc predictive validity H - CAS self report
58
Research support for absorp/addic model para
Link between celeb worship and body image - Maltby: teenage girls (intense personal) deficiency (poor body image) admired celeb body poor psych function link lvl of para rel
59
Universal tendency of attach theory
Dinkha : compared indiv vs collect > insecure attach most likely intense para > generalisable, universal exp
60
McCutcheon evidence attach security not effect (counter to universal tendency)
Attach security not affect likelihood of para rel in US pps insecure no more likely than secure > para rel not necessarily way to compensate for attach issues
61

Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions