relationships essay plans Flashcards
sexual selection AO1
Sexual selection - evolutionary explanation for partner preference - genes selected that promote survival (natural selection) or successful reproduction (sexual selection)
Darwin - concept of sexual selection - females select males with characteristics that are more likely to produce robust offspring
Adaptive traits - eg aggression - provide an advantage for male over competitors for reproductive rights
Human reproductive behaviour - any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce, increasing chances of survival of our genes
Anisogamy - differences between male and female sex cells - gives rise to two types of sexual selection - consequence is that theres no shortage of fertile males but a fertile female is a much rarer resource
Inter-sexual selection - between sexes - preferred strategy of females eg choosing mates based on traits - male peacocks
Dimorphism - males and females end up looking very different because of intra-sexual selection - women don’t need to compete but youthfulness is more important - eg men being bigger and women having a large waist-to-hip ratio
Intra-sexual selection - competition within sex - allow men to outcompete rivals - behavioural consequences - characteristics that are favoured and pass on (allow men to outcompete rivals) - include deceitfulness, intelligence and aggression - selection of aggressiveness in males
sexual selection AO3
Research support - inter-sexual selection
- Clark and Hatfield
- Sent male and female students across uni campus and approached other students to ask for sex
- 0% of women said yes, 75% of men said yes
- Females are choosier than males
- Males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success
- Simplistic
- Sexual strategies theory (Buss and Schmitt) - both males and females adopt similar matching strategies when seeking long-term relationships
- It is more complex and nuanced view of how evolutionary pressures influence partner preference which takes account the context of reproductive behaviour
Research support - intra-sexual selection
- Support the predictions of sexual selection theory
- Buss - survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries
- Variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference
- Females placed greater value of characteristics
- Men value physical attractiveness and youth more than women
- Findings reflect consistent sex differences in partner preferences and support the predictions from sexual selection theory
Social and cultural influences underestimated
- Limitation
- Theories overlook influences of social and cultural factors on partner preference
- Partner preferences - develop faster than evolutionary timescales imply - due to cultural factors eg contraception
- Women’s role in workplace
- Bereczkei et al - social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences - no longer resource-oriented
- Partner preferences today - likely due to combination of evolutionary and cultural influences - any theory that fails to account for both is a limited explanation
Sexual selection and homosexuality
- Cant explain preferences in homosexuality
- But homosexual preferences differ just like heterosexuals
- Lawson et al - looked at personal ads placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women
- Preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women
self-disclosure AO1
What does SPT state - reciprocal exchange of personal information, both breadth and depth - truth and increases intimacy
What is self-disclosure - revealing personal information to another person - creates relationship beyond initial attraction
Who came up with SPT - altman and taylor
What does SPT involve - how relationships develop, reciprocal exchange of information, self-disclosure should be welcomed and reciprocated
Breadth - superficial information - layers of an onion - low risk information - breadth of disclosure is narrow because many topics are off-limits
Depth - as relationship develops - becomes deeper - self-disclosure becomes deeper - wider range of topics and eventually high-risk information
What is depentration - describes how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage
Why is reciprocity important - needed for a relationship to develop - empathy and trust and feelings of intimacy which deepen the relationship
Who came up with reciprocity - Ries and Shaver
self-disclosure AO3
Research support
- Strength
- SPT
- Sprecher and Hendrick - heterosexual dating couples
- Strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners
- More satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship
- Sprecher et al - relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners reciprocate
- Increase validity of theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
Counterpoint
- Much supporting research is correlation
- Correlation does not equal causation - no valid conclusion to draw
- Alternative explanations just as likely
- Maybe self-disclosure and satisfaction are independent of each other and both are caused by a third variable
- Self-disclosures may not cause satisfaction directly, reducing the validity of SPT of self-disclosure
Real-world application
- Strength
- Help improve communication to relationships
- Haas and Stafford - 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationship
- If more self-disclosure - deepening satisfaction and commitment
- Psychological insights can be valuable in helping people who are having problems in relationships
Cultural differences
- Limitation - not true for all cultures
- Nu Tang et al - in individualist cultures self-disclosure aided relationships
- In collectivist cultures - lower levels in disclosure - levels of satisfaction no different
- Self-disclosure theory is a limited explanation of romantic relationships - based on findings from US - individualist cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures
Self-disclosure and breakdown
- SPT - romantic relationships become more satisfying as self-disclosure increases
- Theories of relationship breakdown - partners often self-disclose more often and more deeply as their relationship deteriorates
- This does not increase satisfaction and often not enough to save relationship
- Incomplete theory
physical attractiveness AO1
What is physical attractiveness - how appealing we find someone’s looks - important factor in formation of romantic relationships
Symmetry - Shackleford and Larson - people with symmetrical faces rated more attractive - signal for genetic fitness
Social norms - Bereczkei - rapid chances in partner preferences due to changing social norms
Neoteny - baby-face neotenous features - trigger protective instinct - more attractive - eg large eyes and small nose
Halo effect - someone who is physically attractive has more positive traits - one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness) has disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes
Dion - what is beautiful is good - rated as kind, strong, successful
Self-fulfilling prophecy - behaving more positively towards people we view attractive so they behave more nicely in return
Matching hypothesis - Walster and Walster - we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness
Research - computer dance - completed questionnaire but paired randomly most liked partners were most physically attractive
Male and female students invited to dance - rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers and completed questionnaire about themselves
Told data about themselves and information would be used by a computer to decide their partner for evening
Actually paired randomly
Hypothesis - not supported
Most liked partners - most physically attractive
Berschied et al -
Replicated study - each participant was able to select their partner from varying degrees of attractiveness
Participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
Conclusion - Tend to choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
Choice of partner is a compromise - risk rejection in selecting most attractive people so we settle on those who are in our league physically
physical attractiveness AO3
Research support
- Strength - physical attractiveness associated with halo effect
- Attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent
- Halo effect persisted even when participants knew the person had no particular expertise
- Implications for politics - dangers for democracy if politicians judged due to being physically attractive
- Palmer and Peterson
Evolutionary explanation
- Some female features considered attractive across cultures - white hispanic and asian men rated as highly attractive
- Small nose, large eyes, prominent cheekbones, high eyebrows
- Cunningham et al
- What is considered physically attractive consistent across different societies
- Symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness
- Makes sense at evolutionary level
Research challenging the matching hypothesis
- Limitation - matching hypothesis not supported by real-world research
- Taylor et al - studied activity logs of popular online dating site
- Real-world test - measures actual date choices not just preferences
- Online daters sought partners who were more physically attractive than them
- Undermines validity as contradicts central prediction
Counterpoint
- Choosing individuals for dating could be considered different situation from selecting partner for romantic relationship
- Meta-analysis of 17 studies - Feingold
- Significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
- Support for matching hypothesis from studies of real-world established romantic partners
Individual differences
- Most of evidence highlights role of physical attractiveness in initial formation of romantic relationships
- Evidence some people to not attach much importance to attractiveness
- Touhey - measured sexist attitudes of men and women (MACHO scale)
- Low scores - relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the likeability of potential partners
filter theory AO1
Filter theory - explanation of relationship formation - difference factors reduce available romantic partners to smaller pool - all romantic partners potentially available to us reduced by a series of filters
Field of availables - entire set of potential romantic partners
Field of desirables - reduced number
Social demography - physical proximity, class, age - leads to homogamy - socially and culturally similar
Similarity in attitudes - important, especially early in a relationship when such similarities encourage deeper self-disclosures - Kerchoff and Davis - only couples less than 18 months
Complementary - Kerckhoff and Davis - similarity important to develop romantic relationships - encourages greater and deeper communication and self-disclosure - more important later in the relationship - adds depth
Law of attraction - Byrne - similarity causes attraction - consistent findings
filter theory AO3
Research support
- Strength from Kerckhoff and Davis
- Longitudinal study - both partners in dating couples completed questionnaires to assess two main factors - similarity of values and complementarity
- Closeness measures by questionnaire seven months later
- Closeness associated with similarity of values for couples less then 18 months
- Complementarity predicted closeness for longer relationships
Counterpoint
- Levinger
- Studies failed to replicate findings
- 18 month cut off to distinguish between short and long term
- Filter theory is undermined by the lack of validity of its evidence base
Problem with complementarity
- Limitation
- Markey and Markey - lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied
- Their sample of couples had been romantically involved for a mean time of more than 4 1/2 years
- Similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction
Actual versus perceived similarity
- Limitation
- Actual similarity matters less in a relationship
- Montoya et al - meta-analysis - actual similarity affected attraction only in short-term lab interactions
- Real-world relationship - perceived similarity was stronger predictor
- Perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not cause
Social change
- Demographic factors reduce field of availables - homogamy
- Role of filters change over time - online dating and apps - location not a big factor
- Social changes have led to relationships that were less common 30 years ago
social exchange theory AO1
What does SET predict - we stay only as long as the relationship is more rewarding than alternatives
How proposed - Thibault and Kelley
Homans - borrowed concepts from economics and Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning
Economics - minimax principle - maximise rewards, minimise costs
Costs - money, time, jealousy
Rewards - anything that makes us feel valued - money, status
Outcome - outcome = rewards - costs
Comparison level - the amount of reward you believe you deserve from relationship - influenced by previous experience and social norms - linked with self esteem
Comparison level of alternatives - whether someone can get a greater outcome in another relationship
Duck - the clalt we adopt will depend on the state of our current relationship
Stages of relationship development - sampling, bargaining, commitment, instutionalism
Sampling - experiment with rewards and costs in our relationships
Bargaining - we negotiate rewards and costs at the start of a relationship
Commitment - rewards increase and costs lessen so relationship stabilises
Institutionalism - normative rewards and costs are well established
social exchange theory AO3
Research support
- Strength
- Research studies
- Kurdek asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaire
- Measures relationship commitment and SET variables
- More committed partners perceived most rewards and fewest costs
- Research findings match predictions - validity of theory in gay, lesbian and heterosexual
Counterpoint
- Studies ignore equity
- What matters is not just balance of rewards and costs
- Instead - partners’ perceptions that this is far
- SET is a limited explanation - cannot account for a significant proportion of research findings on relationships
Direction of cause and effect
- Limitation
- Claims dissatisfaction arises after relationship stops being profitable
- Argyle - we don’t monitor costs and rewards or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied
- When satisfied with relationship and committed to it - do not notice alternatives
- Considering costs/ alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse
- Miller - those rating themselves as being in highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people, good predictor of relationship continuing
Vague concepts
- Limitation
- SET deals are vague and hard to quantify
- Real-world psychological rewards and costs are subjective and harder to define
- Rewards and costs vary a lot from one person to another
- Concept of comparison levels - unclear what the values of CL and Clalt must be before dissatisfaction
- Theory is difficult to test in a valid way
Inappropriate central assumptions
- SET assumes relationships are economic in nature
- Clark and Mills - cannot apply this to romantic relations as they are communal-based
- Romantic partners do not ‘keep score’ - would destroy trust
Explain abusive relationships
- Strength - explain why people stay in abusive relationships
- Explanatory strength of the theory
Practical applications
equity theory AO1
Equity theory - economic theory - developed in response to criticism of SET
Equity - means fairness - both partners’ profit in a relationship should be roughly the same - does not mean equality (things being equal) - inequality leads to dissatisfaction
Role of equity - lack of equity means one partner over benefits and other underbenefits which leads to dissatisfaction
Equity and equality - rewards and costs do not have to be the same for both partners - a partner who puts a lot into the relationship will be satisfied if they also get a lot out of it
Consequences of inequity - strong positive correlation between perceived inequity and dissatisfaction
Changs in perceived equity - greatest dissatisfaction comes from changes in perceived equity as relationship develops
Dealing with inequity - underbenefitting partners either hard hard to restore equity or they lower their standards so the relationships feel equitable even though no other change made
Benevolents - individuals who prefer to have their input/output ratios smaller than partner - prefer to underbenefit
equity theory AO3
Research support
- Strength - confirm equity theory as a more valid explanation than SET
- Utne et al - survey of 118 recently married couples - measuring equity
- Aged between 16 and 45 years - together for more than two years before marrying
- Couples who considered relationship equitable - more satisfied than those who were overbenefitting or underbenefitting
- Equity is a major concern of romantic couples - linked with satisfaction
Counterpoint
- Berg and McQuinn - equity did not increase over time
- Did not find that relationships which ended and those that continued differed in equity
- Other variables such as self-disclosure found to be more important
Undermines validity of equity theory - not play a role in relationship satisfaction as predicted
Cultural limitations
- Limitation - not apply to all cultures
- Aumer-Ryan et al - cultural differences in link between equity and satisfaction
- Individualist cultures - relationship satisfying when equitable
- Collectivist cultures most satisfied when overbenefitting - both men and women
- Theory is limited because only applies to some cultures
Individual differences
- Limitation - not all partners in romantic relationships concerned with equity
- Huseman et al - some people less concerned about equity than the norm
- Describe some partners as benevolent - prepared to contribute more
- Enititleds - believe they deserve overbenefit - accept without guilt
- Desire for equity varies from one individual to another - not a universal feature
Cause of effect
- Lack of equity is a cause of dissatisfaction
- Utne et al - both overbenefitting and underbenefitting led to dissatisfaction
However - Other research shows opposite direction of cause and effect
- Grote and Clark - as soon as partners start monitoring contributions - sign of dissatisfaction
- Then partner notice inequities - become more dissatisfied - cycle of misery
Rusbult’s investment theory AO1
Proposed by Rusbult et al - 2011
Commitment - main psychological factor that maintains relationships - partners are committed because they have made an investment
Satisfaction - satisfying relationship has many rewards and few costs (ie is profitable)
Comparison with alternatives - relationship compares favourable with possible alternatives (comparison level)
Investment - investment size is extent of resources we put into relationship and would be lost
Intrinsic example - things we put directly into the relationship eg money, effort, possessions
Extrinsic example - things that we brought into people’s life through the relationship eg children, friends
Satisfaction versus commitment - commitment is main psychological factor with satisfaction as a contributory factor
Relationship maintenance mechanisms - willing to sacrifice (putting partner’s interests first), forgiveness (pardoning serious transgressions), accommodation
Rusbult’s investment theory AO3
Research support
P - Strength as support from meta-analysis by Le and Agnew
E - 52 studies reviewed from late 1970s to 1999 included 11,000 participants from five countries
E - satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment and when commitment was greatest relationship was most stable and lasted the longest, true for men and women, across cultures and homosexual and heterosexual relationships
L - validity to Rusbult’s claim
P - strong correlations
E - does not allow us to conclude that factors identified by model cause commitment in a relationship
E - could be the more commitment you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship, so direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model
L - not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it
Explanation of violence
P - strength as explanation of relationships that involve intimate partner violence
E - Rusbult and Martz studied domestically abused women at a shelter and found that those most likely to return to an abuse partner reported having greatest investment and fewest attractive alternatives
E - these women dissatisfied but still committed
L - shows that satisfaction alone cannot explain this
Simplistic
P - limitation as it can be seen as it views investment in a simplistic one-dimensional way
E - Goodfriend and Agnew - more to investment that just resources - early stages partners have very few actual investments - extended model by including investments in future plans
E - motivation to commit because they cherish plans for the future
L - original model is limited because neglects true complexity of investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment
Self-report
P - supported by self-report models
E - self-report can be influenced by biases and subjective beliefs of respondents
E - may be appropriate because what determines commitment is not objective in reality
L - what may matter move is what a person believes and perceives so many improve credibility
Duck’s phase model AO1
Proposed by Steve Duck in 2007
Phase model of breakdown - explanation of the stages of when a relationship is not working, once a partner is dissatisfied they enter the four stages
Phase model - breakdown is not a one-off event but distinct phases
Threshold - each phase is marked by realising a change is needed
Intra-psychic phase - dissatisfied partner weighs pros and cons of ending or continuing the relationship - during thinking about reasons why they’re unhappy - I cant stand this anymore
Dyadic phase - partners discuss the state of their relationship, airing their dissatisfactions - hostility and resentment - I would be justified in withdrawing
Social phase - break-up is made public and form alliances with mutual friends and these friends expected to take sides - I mean it
Grave dressing phase - relationship is over and former partners spin their version of breakdown for public consumption and prepare for the next relationship - its now inevitable
