Relationships Flashcards
(14 cards)
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
Sexual Selection: Partner preference is driven by sexual selection, meaning individuals select their partners to maximise reproductive success.
Males: Males invest less biologically, as they can remain fertile and cannot be sure of paternity. They are more likely to be promiscuous and prefer short-term mating strategies with multiple females. They typically seek young, attractive fertile females.
Females: Females invest more biologically, as they are only fertile on average for 30 years, but can be sure of maternity. More likely to engage in long-term mating and are more choosy, opting for more dominant, strong males who can provide resources.
Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
RTS (Buss) - Survey on over 10,000 ppts from 33 countries. Found males prefer youthful, more physically attractive females, whereas females prefer more resourceful and ambitious males.
RTS (Clarke and Hatfield) - Males and females approach members of the opposite sex, and asked ‘will you have sex with me’. It was found 75% of males said yes, and 0% of females said yes, showing females to be choosier.
Lacks Temporal Validity - Cannot explain homosexuality, individuals who chose to have abortions, or individuals who do not want children, as it assumes all relationships are motivated by a desire to reproduce.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure
Revealing personal information about yourself. We share our likes and dislikes, and interests and attitudes to understand our partner better.
SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY:
- Gradual process of revealing yourself to someone.
- Once one partner discloses something personal, they are signalling they trust their partner.
- In order to disclose more information, the other partner must also disclose something personal (reciprocal exchange).
- Gradually gain a deeper understanding of one another, and the romantic relationship deepens which increases attraction.
BREADTH AND DEPTH OF DISCLOSURE:
- As breadth and depth increase, the couple becomes more committed to each other.
- Beginning - reveal low risk info, revealable to anyone. If too much deep information is revealed early on, it can threaten relationship development.
- In a committed relationship, people disclose intimate/ high risk information.
AO3:
RTS (Sprecher and Hendrick) - Studied heterosexual couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure, and were more satisfied and committed in their relationships.
Based on correlational research.
Limited by Cultural Relativism
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attractiveness
Individuals with symmetrical faces were rated as more attractive, and showed signs of genetic fitness.
Women with Neotenous features, such as a small nose, were seen as more attractive and they trigger a protective and caring instinct.
Matching Hypothesis:
- Look for partners who have similar levels of physical attractiveness, instead of choosing the most appealing people.
‘The Computer Dance’ - ppts had to choose own dance partner, were rated on attraction and picked individuals that matched in physical attractiveness.
- Avoids risk of being rejected if we select someone of a similar attractiveness.
AO3:
RTS (Cunningham et al) - Similarities across cultures, large eyes and small nose were rated attractive by hispanic and asian males as a feature of genetic fitness.
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS RTC (Taylor et al) - Studied activity logs of a popular dating site. Measured actual date choices and not just preferences. Online daters sought more attractive individuals.
Different Purpose than Dating
ALL Research is Correlational
Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory
1) Social Demography
- Factors such as ethnic group, location and religion.
- Realistic field of availabilities is limited by social circumstances, and anyone too different will be discounted for.
- Outcome of this filter is homogamy (someone culturally or socially similar).
2) Similarity in Attitudes
- Important, but only those that had been together for less than 18 months.
- Similarity of basic values allow for greater and deeper communication and self-disclosure.
- If similarity does not exist, and partners have little in common, the relationship will fizzle out.
3) Complementarity:
- Long-term relationships must ‘meet each other’s needs’.
- Two partners compliment one another when they have traits the other lacks.
- This means opposites attract, and gives two romantic partners the feeling they form a whole.
AO3:
RTS (Kerchkoff and Davis) - Longitudinal questionnaire, assessing complementarity and similarity of attitudes. Closeness was associated with similarity of values for a couples who were together for less than 18 months - older couples suggested complementarity predicted closeness.
Lacks Temporal Validity
May Not Apply to All Types of Relationships - lesbian couples share equal dominance.
Theory of Romantic Relationships: Social Learning Theory
Rewards Cost and Profits:
- Costs and rewards are subjective (EXAMPLE).
- What is considered rewarding or costly in the early relationship may change as the relationship develops.
- Overall, a relationship where rewards exceed the costs and is mutually beneficial may be maintained.
Two types of comparisons:
1) Comparison Levels - Develops from past relationships, compare with current relationship rewards, feed into expectations of current ones. Influenced by social norms. More experience = more change.
2) Comparison Levels of Alt’s:
- Compare rewards and costs to potential relationships. Predicts we will stay in the relationship as long as we believe it is more rewarding than other relationships.
A relationship satisfaction is maintained if rewards exceed costs, and profit level is not exceeded by alternatives. A mutually beneficial relationship will succeed.
AO3:
RTS (Kurdeck) - Questionnaire, gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples measured commitment and costs/ benefit of relationships, more committed partners perceived more benefits and less costs.
Correlational Research - Cannot establish cause and effect.
Rewards in a relationship are subjective.
Theory of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory
Suggests people have a need for balance in relationships, rather than profit,
- Both partners level of profit must be roughly the same for each partner. This is not the same as equality, as the costs and rewards do not have to be the same.
- If a partner puts a lot into a relationship, and gets a lot out of it, this is equitable and the partner is likely to feel satisfied in the relationship.
- If there is inequity, there will be dissatisfaction. For example, if one partner over benefits and the other under benefits.
1) Overbenefit party feels guilt/ shame
2) Underbenefitted party feels anger/ resentment.
Dealing with inequity:
1) Overbenefitted partner is motivated to salvage the relationship. This requires behavioural changes.
2) Underbenefitted partner may deal with cognitive changes, changing their perception of rewards and costs so the relationship feels more equitable.
AO3:
RTS (Utne et al) - Questionnaire, 118 recently-married couples, found couples who considered relationship equitable were more satisfied than those under/overbenefitting.
Correlational Research
May not apply to all cultures - Collectivist cultures prefer overbeniffiting.
Theory of Romantic Relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model
Emphasises the central importance of commitment:
Commitment depends on 3 factors:
1) Satisfaction - Judged by comparing rewards and costs. Each partner is satisfied if they get more rewards out of the relationship. Based on previous relationships or social norms.
2) Comparison with Alternatives - Compare rewards and costs in our current relationship compared to potential ones with other people, and the possibility of no relationship.
3) Investment Size - Anything we would lose if the relationship was to end.
Two types of investment:
1) Intrinsic: Resources put directly into the relationship - tangible or intangible.
2) Extrinsic: Investments not previously featured in the relationship, which are now closely associated, e.g. children/memories.
As commitment increases, cost of ending relationship increases.
AO3:
RTS (Le and Agnew) - Meta-analysis of 52 studies, found the 3 factors all predicted commitment, and committed relationships were the most stable and long-lasting.
Correlational Research
Alternative theories of romantic relationship - Equity Theory.
Theory of Romantic Relationships: Duck’s Model of Relationship Breakdown
Series of phases, with a threshold that ‘tips’ individuals to the next stage.
THRESHOLD: ‘I cant stand this anymore’.
Intrapsychic: Cognitive process, one member identifies problem but doesn’t discuss, weigh up pros and cons of relationship and evaluate alternatives.
THRESHOLD: ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’.
Dyadic: Focus is on interpersonal processes, cannot avoid talking about the problems/ confrontations/ dissatisfaction aired. They are characterised by anxiety and hostility about lack of equity. Either relationship breaks up or a desire to repair it is created.
THRESHOLD: ‘I mean it’
Social: Breakdown has happened, becomes public and mutual friends pick a side. Negotiation about practicalities, such as assets. This is the point of no return. Breakup takes momentum, driven by social forces.
THRESHOLD: ‘It’s now inevitable’.
Grave Dressing: Justify our decision, tell our own version of events and ensure we leave the relationship with low level of blame. Present ex-partner in a bad light. Traits you used to like about partner are interpreted in a negative fashion.
AO3:
Practical Applications - Led to prevention model for counselling to repair relationships.
Phases considered too rigid
Lacking Cultural Relativism
Virtual Relationships- Self-Disclosure: Hyper-Personal Model
Suggests self-disclosure is more likely to occur in virtual relationships than face-to-face.
WHAT:
- High levels of excitement leads to self-disclosure occurring a lot quicker, becoming a lot more intimate, a lot sooner.
WHY (1): Selective Self-Presentation
- People have more control over image online compared to in the real world.
- They may heavily manipulate their self-image to present themselves in an ideal way. (Hyper-honest or hyper-dishonest).
WHY (2): Anonymity
- Others are unaware of your identity so individuals are more likely to disclose personal information and feel less accountable.
- Leading to feelings of closeness and intimacy.
AO3:
RTC (Ruppal et al) - Meta-analysis of 25 studies, self-report studies showed self-disclosure was greater in face-to-face relationships.
Self-Report Methods, Social Desirability Bias
Virtual Relationships- Self-Disclosure: Effects of Absence of Gating
INTRO: Ftf relationships can experience many gates that affect early development of a relationship. Gates could include physical attractiveness or social anxiety.
BENEFITS:
- Relationship can progress to a point where self-disclosure can occur, away from distracting features.
- Encourages virtual relationships to reach a deeper level a lot quicker than ftf.
- People focus on what’s being said rather than appearance.
RISKS:
- Creates an online image that they may not be able to uphold in face-to-face relationships.
- This may lead to untrue self-disclosure, as people can create any avatar of themself that they want.
AO3:
RTS (McKenna and Barge) - Investigated online communication by shy, lonely and socially anxious people. Found individuals could express their true selves more virtually than in face-to-face situations. 71% of these virtual relationships lasted more than 2 years in comparison to 49% in the outside world.
Fail to consider all relationships are multi-modal
Levels of Parasocial Relationships: Outline
Parasocial relationships are one-sided, unreciprocated relationships where one persons extends themself whilst the other person is unaware of their existence.
LEVELS (ONLY INCLUDE IF ASKED).
Celebrity Attitude Scale Questionnaire, describes 3 levels of parasocial relationships.
1) Entertainment-Social
- Celebrities viewed as sources of attachment. Individuals may speak about them for social interaction.
2) Intense-Personal
- Strong feelings for a celebrity, may appear ‘obsessed; and act as if they would in a ‘real-life’ relationship.
3) Borderline Pathological:
- Uncontrollable fantasies, displays extreme behaviour towards that celebrity. Show addictive behaviour towards a celebrity. May spend a lot of money attempting to befriend celebrity or buy a celebrity-based object, e.g. merchandise.
Levels of Parasocial Relationships: Absorption Addiction Model
Suggests level of parasocial relationships link with poor psychological health.
- Personal crisis can trigger movement from entertainment social to intense involvement to escape realty and give a sense of fulfillment.
1) Absorption - Focus their attention on a celebrity, and identify with the celebrity, giving a sense of fulfillment.
2) Addiction - Obsession becomes similar to an addiction. Individual needs their ‘dose’ in order to gain satisfaction. This can lead to extreme behaviour and delusional thinking.
AO3:
RTS (Maltby et al)
Correlational
Alternative Explanation (Attachment theory)
