Relationships. Flashcards
(43 cards)
Explain inter-sexual selection.
This is the selection of mates between sexes, eg females selecting males or males selecting females.
- Females make a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after birth. - They need to be choosier than males so seek a male who will provide healthy offspring and support them with resources.
- Impact on mating behaviour = prefered characteristics are chosen eg tallest males.
Explain intra-sexual selection.
This is the selection of mates within sexes, eg males competing with other males for mates.
Males do best if they produce as frequently as possible. Competition is necessary as females are a limited resource and are choosy.
Males who compete successfully pass on their genes to the next generation and therefore those traits are favoured.
Intra-sexual selection leads to patterns of behaviour-
- Male aggression = most aggressive are more likely to reproduce.
- Male preference for youthful and fertile women because these are signs of fertility leading to reproductive success.
Evaluation of sexual selection and reproductive behaviour.
+ support for intra-sexual - Buss surveyed 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking about partner preferences. He found that females valued resource related characteristics eg good job, whereas males valued reproductive capacity eg good looks and youth.
+support for inter-sexual - Clark and Hatfield sent students to approach other students and say “I have seen you around… you wanna shag” No female students agreed, but 75% of males did. Supports the theory of females choosiness and how males want to ensure reproductive success.
– ignores social and cultural influences - Chang found that some preferences have changed, and others have remained the same over 25 years in China <3.
Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure - explain what this is.
Self-disclosure refers to revealing intimate information to another person. eg fears, beliefs etc. Some people are careful about disclosing too much too soon. It plays an important role in the development of a relationship.
- it is a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else. - the partner has to RECIPROCATE.
- as relations develope, more is revealed. they gain a better understanding of one another.
Factors affecting attraction: Why is reciprocity important in self-disclosure?
Reis and Shaver suggest that, in addition to a deepening self-disclosure, there must be reciprocity.
Successful relationships will involve disclosure from one partner which is received sensitively by the other partner. In turn, this should lead to further self-disclosure from the other partner.
Evaluation of self-disclosure.
+ men and women who used self-disclosure and those who believed their partners also disclosed were more satisfied and committed to their relationship
+ Sprecher study - 156 undergrad US/ split into pairs/ reciprocal condition/ one-sided disclosure/ after each interaction researchers asked likeness, closeness and enjoyment/ reciprocal condition = better liking. eg strong correlation.
– cannot be generalised - different cultures have different views on self-disclosure (Tang) - the US discloses more sexual shit than China.
– There are other reasons for a breakdown of a relationship - not just a reduction of self-disclosure as Duck’s relationship breakdown recognises that couples talk to each other during the breakdown and this may not be enough to save the relationship.
Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness.
Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
McNulty found that attractiveness is as important after marriage as well as before.
Halo effect: Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people.
Factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness. Explain the matching hypothesis.
Walster et al;
States that we choose partners that are of the same level of attractiveness to ourselves.
To do this we assess out own potential value, if we see ourselves as 7/10 then we find someone who matches.
Evolutionary theories suggest we should seek the most attractive, however, we also need to balance the potential for being rejected, thus we compromise.
Factors affecting attraction: Evaluation.
+ support for the halo effect - Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable than the unattractive.
– mixed support for matching hypothesis - Walster’s initial study failed to support the theory as they found that people preferred partners who were more physically attractive than themselves.
+ however, Feingold found a significant correlation between actual partners attractiveness.
+ can be generalised as it is not culturally biased. Cunningham found similar desires in countries.
Factors affecting attraction: Filter theory. Explain.
Kerckhoff and Davis explained attraction in terms of attitudes and personalities.
- first we consider the ‘field of availables’ which is the selection of potential partners accessible to us.
- from this we select the ‘field of desirables’ via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship.
Factors affecting attraction: filter theory. Explain the first filter.
SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY:
This can be social class or education. You are more likely to meet and have meaningful encounters with people who are physically close and share other feature eg social class.
Anyone who is too different is not a potential partner and is filtered out before the next stage.
Factors affecting attraction: filter theory. Explain the second filter.
SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES:
Important to the development of romantic relationships only for couples who had been together less than 18 months.
In eary stages of a relationship agreeing on basic values promotes better communication and self-disclosure.
Bryne found that similarity in attitudes causes a mutual attraction.
Factors affecting attraction: filter theory. Explain the third filter.
COMPLEMENTARITY:
Partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks.
Complementarity is thought to give the romantic partners a feeling of togetherness. - partners will feel like they are meeting each other’s needs.
Evaluation of filter theory.
+ support from research gives the theory validity - winch found that the first two filters are typical of an early relationship, but complementarity increases in importance and the relationship does.
- the lack of replicability - Kerckhoff and Davis assumed that partners over 18 months were more committed, but this is not the case in all cultures or cases today. - questions whether it can be generalised.
- questions about cause and effect - Davis and Rusbult suggest that attitude alignment takes place ie their attitudes change to become more similar to the others - therefore suggests that similarities are the effect of having a relationship rather than the cause.
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory - SET. Explain.
SET assumes relationships are guided by the minimax principle.
Thibault and Kelley proposed relationships could be explained in terms of economics - it is an exchange of goods, such a doing a favour.
Satisfaction is judged in terms of profit - perceived value of the cost, minus the value of rewards.
Partners are motivated to minimise the costs while maximising the rewards.
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory - SET. Explain the types of costs.
Costs may include loss of time or stress.
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory - SET. Explain the types of rewards.
Rewards may include sex, praise or companionship.
What are the two measures of profit? in SET
- Comparison level
2. Comparison level for alternatives
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory - SET. Explain comparison level.
CL is the judgement of reward level we expect in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms.
Theories of romantic relationships: Social exchange theory - SET. Explain comparison level for alternatives.
CLalt involves considering whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship. We will remain in a relationship when the alternatives are low and the rewards are high.
Evaluation of social exchange theory.
- it assumes that all relationships are exchanged based, most partners will give and receive rewards without thinking of possible profit that might be gained.
- concerns the direction of effect - it assumed dissatisfaction occurs when costs outweigh rewards, however, it can be argued that we do not consider profit until after we become dissatisfied.
Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory explain. the role of it in a relationship.
Social exchange theory suggests that partners seek equality or a balance between costs and benefits.
Therefore, under benefiting and over benefiting can lead to dissatisfaction. The under benefitted partner = anger and resentment. Over benefitted = discomfort and shame.
It’s not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matters - it’s the ratio of the two to each other. You put a lot in and get a lot out then it’s fair.
Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory - explain the consequences of inequity.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction. - strong correlation.
Changes in equity occur during a relationship - if one person continues to put more into the relationship and get less out of it, then satisfaction with the relationship may fail.
The greater the inequity, the more work is required to restore equity.
Evaluation of equity theory.
+ it has research support - Utne found that newly-weds who considered their relationship more equitable were more satisfied than those who considered themselves as over or under benefitting.
- may not be valid in all cultures - those in collectivist countries such as China were most satisfied when over benefitting, rather than in the west where equity was key.
- there are individual differences - Huseman suggested there are some people who are less sensitive to equity than others. - some are happy to contribute more than what they receive.
