Relationships Flashcards
(8 cards)
Sexual Selection
Dawain:
() Proposed concept of sexual selection
() Characteristics that aid successful reproduction
() Peacock example: Tail: GENETIC fitness, aggressive
Anisogamy:
() Differences between male and female gametes
() Sperm: Small, highly mobile
() Eggs: Intervals, significant amount of energy
() Consequence: Fertile female rarer “resource”
Inter-sexual selection:
() BETWEEN the sexes
() Preferred strategy of female
() Robert Trivers: Female makes a greater investment of time, so need to be more choosy
() RUNAWAY PROCESS: Characteristics liked by females is passed down
() Fisher: Sexy Sons hypothesis - Genes we see today have been enhanced by female prefference
Intra-sexual selection:
() WITHIN each sex
() Preferred strategy of male: Quantity over quality
() Competition: Winner passed on
() DIMORPHISM: Males and females look difference because males have to compete, males value fertility
() DIMORPHISM examples: Males larger, males prefer youth and wide hips
() Behavioural consequences: Aggression, deceitfulness, intelligence
Factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure
Overview:
() Revealing likes, fears, attitudes, interests
Social Penetration Theory:
() Altman and Dalmas
() Gradual process of revealing inner self
() “Penetrate” into each others lives, showing trust
Breadth and depth:
() The 2 elements of self-discosure
() “Onion” metaphor: Alot of low risk information, not much high-risk information
() We start low risk, eventually high risk
() DEPENETRATION: Unsatisfied partners disclose less
Reciprocity of disclosure:
() Reis and Shaver: There needs to be a reciprocal element
Physical Attractiveness
Explaining importance of physical attractiveness:
() SEXUAL SELECTION
() People are attracted to: NEOTENOUS (baby-face)
() Symmetry: HONEST SIGNAL OF GENETIC FITNESS
Halo effect:
() PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STERYOTYPE: “What is beautiful is good”
() Dion: Physically attractive is more consistently rated as king, strong, successful
() SELF-FUFFILLING PROPHECY: They will act kinder due to perception
Matching Hypothesis:
() Walster and Walster: “The computer dance”
() Students were told they were matched based on a questionaire for dance (it was actually random)
() Most liked partners were most attractive ones
() Berscheid replication: When able to select, selected similar attractiveness
Filter Theory
Overview:
() Kerckhoff and Davis
() Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term and long-term relationships (under or over 18 months)
() Devised filter theorey: FIELD OF AVAILABLES, FIELD OF DESIRABLES
3 Levels:
Social demography:
() Factors that influence meeting
() Proximity, religion, ethnic group
() Proximity leads to ACCESSIBLITY
() HOMOGAMY: People who are too different are filtered out
Similarity of attitudes:
() Only important for under 18 months development
() Encourages self-disclosure
() Donn Byrne: LAW OF ATTRACTION - Consistent findings that similarity causes attraction
Complementarity:
() How well do they meet each others needs
() Laugh or make laugh, dominant or not, nuturer or nuturee.
() More important for long term (over 18 months)
() Gives feeling of forming a whole
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory
Rewards costs and profits:
() Proposed by Thibault and Kelley
() Reflects ECONOMIC assumptions of exchange
() MINIMAX PRINCIPLE
() Rewards and costs are subjective and individual
() Rewards: Companionship, sex, emotional support
() Expenses: Stress, energy, compromise
() OPPORTUNITY COST: Investment in relationship means using resources you cannot invest elsewhere
Comparison level:
() Amount of reward you think you deserve
() Influenced by SOCIAL NORMS
() CL changes with more exposure to SOCIAL norms through relationships
() Link with self-esteem
Comparison level for alternatives:
() The extent to which we believe we could gain greater rewards in other cultures
() Only stay in relationship if more rewarding than alternatives
() Steve Duck: If costs outweigh rewards, other relationships are more attractive
Stages of relationship development:
() Sampling: “Explore the rewards and costs by experimenting them in our own relationships”
() Bargaining: Partners start exchaning, begin to see whats profitable
() Commitment: Costs and rewards become more predictable
() Institutionalisation: Rewards and costs established
Equity theory
Overview:
() Developed in response to critisism of SET
() Most people need balance not profit
Role of equity:
() Equity means fairness
() PROFIT is the same as opposed to rewards and costs being the same
() Lack of equity: Overbenefitter and underbenefitter
Consequences:
() Greater percieved inequity leads to great dissatisfaction
() CHANGES IN PERCIEVE EQUITY: Contributing more than you recieve is more satisfying at start of the relationship
() DEALING WITH INEQUITY: Underbenefitted partner motivated to change, or underbenefitted partner revise perceptions of rewards and costs
Rusbult Investment Model
Overview:
() Commitment depends on 3 factors
() Development of SET
Factor 1: Satisfaction:
() Based on comparison level
Factor 2: Comparison with alternatives:
() Could the needs be better met with others
Factor 3 Investment:
() What would be lost if the relationship ended
() INTRINSIC INVESTMENT: Tangible and intangible resources directly put into
() EXTRINSIC INVESTMENT: Resources that did not feature previously but are now associated: Car, memories, children
Sastisfaction versus commitment:
() Commitment is the main factor, satisfaction just contributory
() Explains why unsatisfied partners stay
Relationship maintenance mechanisms:
() Accomodation: Promote relationship
() Willingness to sacrifce
() Forgiveness
() Positive illusions
() Ridiculing alternatives
Theories of romatic relationships: Duck phase model
Overview:
() PHASE MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BREKADOWN
() Each phase is marked with a partner reaching a threshold
Intra-psychic:
() Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore”
() Cognitive process
() Disatisfied partner may weigh pros and cons with trusted friend, evluating alternatives
Dyadic Phase:
() “I would be justified in withdrawing”
() Interpersonal process
() Series of confrontations
() Two outcomes: Continue breaking up, try to repair
() Self-disclosures may become more frequent
Social Phase:
() Threshold “I mean it”
() Breakup made public
() Mutuals choose a side
() Some reassure, some blame other partner, some hasten end by revealing information, some may try to repair
() Usually point of no return
() Threshhold: It is now inevitable
() Aftermath: Favourable story spun
() Partner retains social credit
() Endearing traits are reinterpreted
