Relationships Flashcards
(35 cards)
Sexual selection
Evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on
Anisogamy
Basis of reproductive human behaviour, and is the difference between male and female gametes
Male gametes small, highly mobile, little energy to produce
Female gametes large, produced for limited time, significant energy required
Inter-sexual selection
Between the sexes. Strategies males use to select females and vice versa. Preferred strategy of female: quality over quantity, females make bigger investment.
Intra-sexual selection
Within each sex. Strategy between males to be chosen. Preferred strategy of males, quantity over quality. Male ‘winner’ gets to pass on their characteristics.
Research support for inter selection and intra selection
+ Inter. Clark and Hatfield. Male and female students asked opposite sex “Would you go to bed with me tonight” on campus. No females agreed, 75% men agreed immediately. Supports that females are choosier
+ Intra. Buss conducted survey of 10,000 adults and asked questions that evolutionary theory predicts as important. Females placed greater value on resources, males valued physical attractiveness and youth.
2 limitations of evolutionary explanation
- overlooks influences of social and cultural factors in partner preference. Women’s greater role in workplace means they no longer need to depend on a man, so preference may no longer be resource orientated.
- homosexuality. cannot explain partner preferences in gay and lesbian people as they are not assessing genetic fitness for offspring.
Altman and Taylor social penetration theory
Gradual process of revealing inner self to someone. Reciprocal exchange of info between partners.
Breadth and depth of self disclosure
Altman and Taylors model 2 elements. Layers of an onion. Disclose alot at start of relationship but info is superficial and low risk. Breadth is narrow as many topics are off limits. As relationships develop, intimate high risk info is shared e.g painful memories.
Also describe depenetration, how unsatisfied partners disclose less as they disengage.
Reis and Shaver reciprocity of self disclosure
For a relationship to develop and increase in breadth and depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element to self disclosure. There is a balance which deepens the relationship
2 strengths of self disclosure
+ research support. Sprecher and Hendrick studied couples and found strong correlations between satisfaction levels and self disclosure. Those who used and received self disclosure were more satisfied and committed. increases validity
+ real world app. can help those who want to improve communication in their relationship. if less skilled partners learn to use disclosure, relationship can be deepened. theory provides help.
2 weaknesses of self disclosure
- much self disclosure research is correlational, like Sprecher and Hendrick. Perhaps self disclosure and satisfaction are independent of eachother and are caused by a 3rd variable
- cultural differences. Tang reviewed research into disclosure and found couples in US disclose more sexual thoughts than those in China. Despite lower disclosure, satisfaction levels were no different. Limited explantion as it may not be generalisable to other cultures
Halo effect
Dion et al
Physical attractiveness can have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a persons attributes e.g personality
Dion et al found attractive people were consistently rated as kind and sociable compared to unattractive people
What is the matching hypothesis
Proposed by Walster. We desire the most physically attractive partner possible but we also wish to avoid being rejected by someone out of our league. We compromise
1 strength 1 weakness of halo effect
+ research support. Palmer and Peterson found physically attarctive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable. Implications for political process. HE found to apply to many other areas of everyday life, confirming physical attractiveness is an important factor in initial formation of relationships
- individual differences. Towhey found those who scored higher on a quiz that measured sexist attitudes and behaviours were more influenced by physical attractiveness when judging likeability of someone, compared to those who scored low on test who were less sensitive to this influence.
Strength and weakness of matching hypothesis
+ research support. Feingold conducted meta analysis and found significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. Studies looked at actual partners which is more realistic approach than original attempted study
- contradictory research. Taylor studied dating site. Online daters sought meetings with people who were more attractive than them. Did not consider their own attractiveness. Real life test of matching hypothesis because it measured actual date choices
5 AO1 points filter theory
- Kerckhoff and Davis compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term relationships
- 3 main factors that act as filters to narrow down our range of partner choice
- 1st level social demography. location, social class, education, race, religion. choices narrowed by social circumstances as you have more in common and theyre more accessible
- 2nd level similarity in attitudes. Share important beliefs and values, important to development of RLS and short term RLS. Relationship may fizzle out if similarity is not present
- 3rd level complementarity. meet eachothers needs and complement eachother when they have traits that the other lacks e.g one talks alot other listens alot. Important for long term couples. Together form a whole which adds depth and flourishes.
1 strength 2 weaknesses of filter theory
+ research support. Winch found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of earliest stages of RLS. Winch agreed that complementarity is important in happily married couples. Also has face validity as it assumes key factors in a RLS change over time
- failure to replicate. Levinger pointed out many studies have failed to replicate original findings that formed filter theory due to social changes over time and difficulty in defining depth of relationship by length. Problems in applying theory
- direction of cause and effect. theory suggests people are initially attracted to eachother because they are simillar however Rusbult found an attitude alignment effect where long term partners bring their attitudes in line with eachothers. Suggests similarity is an effect of attraction, not the cause
Social Exchange Theory 6 AO1
- Thiabult and Kelley say we try to minimise losses and maximise gains in relationships
- We judge our relationships by the profit it yields
- Costs and rewards. subjective e.g praise, sex, support and time, stress and energy
- comparison level. the amount of reward you believe you deserve. develops from experiences in past relationships, social norms and self esteem. those with low SE will be satisfied with little profit
- comparison level for alternatives. wider context than RLS. is there more rewards from another RLS or being alone
- stages of RLS development sampling, bargaining, commitment and institutionalisation
Thibault and Kelley 4 stages of relationship development
Sampling stage: explore rewards and costs by experimenting them or observing others do so
Bargaining: beginning of RLS where partners start exchanging rewards and costs and identifying what is most profitable
Commitment stage: sources of costs and rewards becomes more predictable and RLS becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
Institutionalisation stage: partners now settled down because norms of costs and rewards are firmly established
3 weaknesses of social exchange theory
- direction of cause and effect: Argyle points out we dont measure costs, rewards and alts until we are dissatisfied
- innappropriate measurements. Resarchers argue that exchange relationships e.g work colleagues to involve SET but communal rls e.g romantic dont. faulty assumptions
- ignores influence of fairness and equity, arguably more important than costs and rewards
Equity theory: role of equity in rls
Equity is fairness. Walster argues this is the most important factor. There is a lack of equity when one partner underbenefits and the other overbenefits. Its the ratio of costs and rewards rather than size or amount that matters.
Consequences of inequity
Problems arise when 1 partner puts alot into rls but gets little from it. Greater perceived inequity leads to greater dissatisfaction.
Changes in perceived equity: at the start may feel natural to contribute more than receive but overtime it wont feel as satisfying
Dealing with inequity: partners may work to restore equity. outcome may be cognitive than behavioural e.g revise their perception of rewards on costs. something seen previously as a cost may now be accepted as norm e.g thoughtlessness
1 strength 2 weaknesses of equity theory
+ supporting evidence. Utne carried out survey on married couples and found couples who considered rls as equitable were more satisfied than those over/underbenefitting
- cultural differences. Ryan et al found those in individualist cultures were happiest when rls was equitable vs collectivist who were most satisfied when over benefitting. limited application
- individual differences. Huseman found some partners are prepared to give more and some can overbenefit without feeling guilt. not a universal law of social attraction
What does Rusbult say commitment depends on
Satisfaction level, investment size, comparison with alt
