Relationships AO1 Flashcards
(24 cards)
What is sexual selection and how does anisogamy explain different mating strategies in humans?
Sexual selection refers to traits increasing reproductive success, passed down through generations (e.g. peacocks’ tails). Anisogamy is the difference in male and female gametes: males produce many low-investment sperm, females produce few high-investment ova. This leads to two mating strategies: inter-sexual selection (female choice – “quality over quantity”) and intra-sexual selection (male competition – “quantity over quality”).
What is inter-sexual selection and how do Trivers’ and Fisher’s theories explain it?
Inter-sexual selection is when one sex (typically females) chooses mates based on desirable traits. Trivers (1972) argued females invest more in offspring and thus prefer genetically fit males with resources. Fisher (1930) proposed the “sexy sons hypothesis”: females who mate with attractive males will have sons who are also attractive, ensuring continued reproductive success
What is intra-sexual selection and how does it lead to sexual dimorphism?
Intra-sexual selection involves competition between members of one sex (usually males) for access to mates. Winners reproduce, passing on traits like size, strength, and aggression. This causes sexual dimorphism, where males develop traits (e.g. muscular build, facial structure) that enhance competitiveness. Males also prefer youth and signs of fertility (e.g. waist-hip ratio).
What is self-disclosure and how does Social Penetration Theory explain it?
Self-disclosure is revealing personal information to a partner to deepen intimacy. Taylor et al. (1973) proposed Social Penetration Theory, suggesting relationships develop through reciprocal, gradual disclosure. Each partner reveals deeper, high-risk information (e.g. trauma, beliefs), creating mutual trust. Disclosure increases intimacy, but too much too early can cause discomfort or rejection.
What do Altman & Taylor say about breadth, depth, and reciprocity in self-disclosure?
Altman & Taylor used the ‘onion metaphor’ to describe disclosure:
* Early stages involve narrow breadth and shallow depth (low-risk facts).
* Deeper layers emerge over time, covering intimate, emotional, and sensitive topics.
* ‘Penetration’ into the self increases intimacy.
Shaver et al. (1988) emphasised reciprocity—mutual disclosure is essential for trust and satisfaction in romantic relationships.
What is physical attractiveness and how does the matching hypothesis explain partner choice?
Physical attractiveness is seen as important in romantic partner choice. Walster & Walster’s matching hypothesis suggests we choose partners who are of similar attractiveness to ourselves, as a compromise to avoid rejection.
Elaine Walster et al. (1966) found no support for this—people preferred the most attractive partner, regardless of their own looks. However, Berscheid et al. (1971) found that when given a choice, participants matched with similarly attractive partners.
Why is physical attractiveness evolutionarily important in partner preference?
Todd Shackelford et al. (1997): symmetrical faces signal genetic fitness (hard to fake), thus more attractive.
People also favour neotenous (baby-like) features (e.g. large eyes, small nose) which trigger a caring instinct.
Michael Cunningham et al. (1995): found cross-cultural agreement (White, Hispanic, Asian men) on attractive female features, suggesting evolutionary universality.
What is the halo effect and how does it relate to physical attractiveness?
The halo effect is the assumption that physically attractive people possess other desirable traits (e.g. intelligence, kindness). Karen Dion et al. (1972): “What is beautiful is good.”
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy—attractive individuals are treated more positively, making them seem even more appealing.
What is Filter Theory and what are the three stages of filtering proposed by Kerckhoff & Davis?
Filter Theory explains relationship formation through a series of filters that narrow a ‘field of availables’ into a ‘field of desirables’.
Social Demography (e.g., proximity, ethnicity, class) – influences initial contact.
Similarity in Attitudes – key in short-term relationships (<18 months); shared values encourage attraction and self-disclosure.
Complementarity – more important in long-term relationships; partners balance each other’s traits to feel like a ‘whole’.
What research supports Filter Theory and how do the filters work in different relationship stages?
Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) found:
* Similarity in attitudes predicted closeness in couples <18 months.
* Complementarity predicted closeness in couples >18 months.
Byrne (1997): similarity is the “law of attraction.”
Complementarity = meeting each other’s emotional needs (e.g. dominant/submissive pairing).
What is Social Exchange Theory (SET) and how is relationship satisfaction assessed?
SET (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) sees relationships as economic exchanges—individuals seek to maximise rewards and minimise costs (minimax principle). A relationship is judged as satisfying if rewards exceed costs. Rewards/costs are subjective and include emotional support, intimacy, stress, compromise, and time (opportunity cost).
Satisfaction depends on:
* Comparison Level (CL) – what we feel we deserve based on past experiences and social norms.
* Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) – whether other potential partners offer more rewards.
What are the four stages of relationship development in SET?
SET outlines how relationships evolve through reward-cost analysis over four stages:
Sampling – explore potential costs/rewards.
Bargaining – beginning of relationship; negotiate most profitable exchanges.
Commitment – exchanges become predictable; rewards increase, costs lessen.
Institutionalisation – partners are settled; cost-reward norms are firmly established.
What is equity theory and how does it differ from social exchange theory?
Equity theory (Walster et al., 1978) argues that satisfaction in romantic relationships depends on fairness, not equality. It’s not about getting the same rewards/costs, but that each partner’s perceived ratio of rewards to costs is similar. Overbenefitting leads to guilt/shame; underbenefitting leads to anger/resentment. Equity is subjective and may vary across time and individuals.
What are the consequences of perceived inequity and how might couples respond?
Inequity causes dissatisfaction.
The greater the perceived unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction.
Partners may try to:
* Restore equity behaviourally (e.g. take on more chores)
* Adjust perceptions of fairness (e.g. accept messiness or even abuse as normal)
Early relationships may have temporary imbalance, but partners often expect a fairer exchange over time.
What is Rusbult’s Investment Model and how does it expand on Social Exchange Theory?
Rusbult’s Investment Model explains commitment in romantic relationships through 3 key factors:
Satisfaction – relationship meets or exceeds expectations (based on CL).
Comparison with alternatives – if alternatives (including being single) are less attractive, commitment increases.
Investment – resources (time, emotions, children, possessions) lost if the relationship ends.
Unlike SET, it explains why partners may stay in unsatisfying relationships if investments are high and alternatives are poor.
In Rustbults investment model, what are intrinsic and extrinsic investments, and how do they affect commitment?
- Intrinsic investments – directly put into the relationship (e.g. time, energy, self-disclosures, emotion).
- Extrinsic investments – linked to the relationship (e.g. shared possessions, children, mutual friends, shared memories).
The more partners have invested, the more committed they are to maintaining the relationship—even during dissatisfaction.
In Rusbults investment model, what role does commitment play in relationship maintenance?
Commitment drives relationship maintenance behaviours, including:
* Accommodation – not retaliating after conflict
* Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner’s needs first
* Forgiveness – after serious transgressions
* Cognitive tactics – devaluing alternatives (ridiculing), and idealising the partner (positive illusions).
Rusbult argues that commitment explains persistence better than satisfaction alone.
What is Duck’s Phase Model and how is relationship breakdown explained?
Duck (2007) proposed that relationship breakdown occurs in four distinct stages, each marked by a psychological ‘threshold’ where a partner realises a change must happen. It’s not a one-off event, but a process over time, beginning with private dissatisfaction and ending with public storytelling and personal redefinition. The four stages are:
Intra-psychic
Dyadic
Social
Grave-dressing
What happens in each of Duck’s four stages of relationship breakdown?
Intra-psychic: Internal dissatisfaction, privately weighing costs, benefits, and alternatives.
Dyadic: Issues are discussed between partners—conflict may grow or repair may be attempted.
Social: The breakup becomes public; friends/family take sides and offer support or blame.
Grave-dressing: Partners create narratives to justify the breakup and protect self-image.
➡️ Rollie & Duck (2006) later added a fifth stage: Resurrection phase – where individuals learn and grow from the failed relationship.
What are the key theories explaining self-disclosure in virtual relationships?
Reduced Cues Theory (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986): Virtual relationships lack non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, tone), causing de-individuation and difficulty forming intimacy.
Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996): Virtual relationships can be more personal and intimate than FtF due to selective self-presentation and anonymity, leading to rapid and intense disclosures.
➡️ Theories differ in whether online disclosure is impeded or enhanced by the lack of cues.
What is the ‘absence of gating’ in virtual relationships?
Gating refers to features that prevent relationship formation in FtF interactions (e.g. shyness, physical appearance, social anxiety).
McKenna & Bargh (1999) argue that online anonymity removes these gates, allowing individuals to form relationships based on deeper self-disclosure.
People may create idealised versions of themselves (e.g. changing gender, personality), leading to quicker progression of virtual relationships.
What are parasocial relationships and how are they classified?
Parasocial relationships are one-sided, unreciprocated bonds where a person invests emotional energy, time, and commitment in a celebrity who is unaware of their existence. McCutcheon et al. (2002) identified three levels using the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS):
Entertainment-social – Least intense. Celebrities are seen as entertainment and fuel for social interaction (e.g., gossip, small talk).
Intense-personal – Intermediate. Involves obsessive thoughts and intense emotional investment (e.g., seeing a celebrity as a soulmate).
Borderline-pathological – Strongest. Involves uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours (e.g., stalking, illegal acts).
What is the absorption-addiction model of parasocial relationships?
Proposed by McCutcheon (2002), the model suggests parasocial relationships form due to personal deficiencies (e.g., low self-esteem, poor real-life relationships).
Absorption involves becoming preoccupied with a celebrity to gain fulfilment and escape reality.
Addiction refers to the need for stronger involvement, often through more extreme behaviours (e.g., believing the celebrity wants to meet them).
This explains how admiration can escalate into unhealthy obsession to maintain the illusion of closeness.
How does attachment theory explain parasocial relationships?
Attachment theory suggests early attachment patterns influence later relationships. Insecure-resistant individuals are most likely to form parasocial bonds as they desire intimacy but fear rejection. Parasocial relationships offer a ‘safe’ bond with no risk of rejection or criticism.
McCutcheon et al. (2006), however, found no significant link between attachment type and likelihood of forming a parasocial bond, suggesting the explanation may lack universal support.
