Relationships AO3 Flashcards
(10 cards)
What are the key evaluations of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
✅ Buss (1989) – large cross-cultural support for sex differences in mate preferences (men: youth; women: resources).
❌ Chang et al. (2011) – partner preferences can shift with social change, suggesting evolution isn’t the sole driver.
❌ Eagly & Wood (1999) – social role theory argues cultural norms shape preferences, not biology.
❌ Ignores non-heterosexual and child-free relationships – lacks universality.
✅ Useful application – explains consistent dating trends across cultures and time.
How can we evaluate self-disclosure in romantic relationships?
✅ Sprecher et al. (2013) – reciprocal disclosure increases intimacy and satisfaction.
❌ Difficult to establish causality – self-disclosure may be a result, not cause, of closeness.
❌ Tang et al. (2013) – cultural bias: US couples disclose more, but satisfaction is not higher.
✅ Application in relationship counselling – promoting open dialogue.
❌ Not all disclosures (e.g., trauma) enhance attraction; context matters.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of physical attractiveness as a factor?
✅ Dion et al. (1972) – “what is beautiful is good” stereotype supports the halo effect.
✅ Walster et al. (1966) – matching hypothesis: we seek similarly attractive partners.
❌ Taylor et al. (2011) – online dating shows people aim for more attractive partners, not matched.
❌ Reductionist – ignores deeper factors like personality and compatibility.
✅ Evolutionary psychology – attractiveness as a health/fertility cue.
What are the AO3 points for filter theory?
✅ Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) – similarity important early, complementarity later in long-term partners.
❌ Levinger (1974) – failed to replicate findings; theory lacks temporal validity.
❌ Online dating challenges assumptions about proximity and similarity.
✅ Practical insight into relationship progression and breakups.
❌ Assumes a rigid, linear process – doesn’t reflect fluid modern relationships.
Evaluate the social exchange theory of romantic relationships.
✅ Kurdek & Schmitt (1986) – satisfaction linked to rewards exceeding costs and lack of alternatives.
❌ Clark & Mills (2011) – romantic relationships are communal, not exchange-based.
❌ Fails to account for equity – unequal investment can still lead to satisfaction.
✅ Useful in relationship therapy – focus on cost-reward balance.
❌ Oversimplifies – doesn’t reflect emotional or irrational choices.
What are the key AO3 points for equity theory?
✅ Utne et al. (1984) – newlyweds who perceived equity were more satisfied.
✅ Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) – equity valued in both individualist and collectivist cultures.
❌ Huseman et al. (1987) – individual differences: not everyone strives for perfect equity.
✅ Explains overbenefit and underbenefit dissatisfaction.
❌ May not apply to all types of relationships (e.g., friendships, family).
How can we evaluate Rusbult’s investment model?
✅ Le & Agnew (2003) – meta-analysis supports commitment as main predictor of relationship longevity.
✅ Rusbult & Martz (1995) – explains why victims of abuse stay (high investment, few alternatives).
❌ Relies on self-report – subjective and potentially biased.
✅ Practical application in improving relationship stability.
❌ Lacks emotional depth – neglects passion, unconscious drives.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Duck’s model of relationship breakdown?
✅ Practical application – couples can identify and address breakdown stages.
✅ Real-world relevance – mirrors common breakup experiences.
❌ Rollie & Duck (2006) – model revised to include ‘resurrection phase’ – earlier version incomplete.
❌ Descriptive, not explanatory – lacks insight into causes of breakdown.
✅ Acknowledges both private and public (social) aspects of dissolution.
Evaluate the theories of virtual relationships in social media.
✅ McKenna & Bargh (2000) – online relationships more successful, esp. for shy individuals.
✅ Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model – selective self-presentation leads to high intimacy.
❌ Reduced Cues Theory is outdated – modern tech allows tone, emojis, video.
❌ Research may lack cross-cultural validity – Western focus.
✅ Application: explains phenomena like catfishing and digital disinhibition.
What are the AO3 points for parasocial relationships?
✅ Cole & Leets (1999) – insecure-resistant attachment linked to parasocial involvement.
✅ Maltby et al. (2003) – intense celebrity worship correlated with low self-esteem and anxiety.
✅ Helps explain celebrity obsessions and stalking behaviour.
❌ Mostly correlational – hard to prove parasocial bonds cause psychological issues.
❌ Ignores individual variation – not all lonely people form parasocial relationships.
