Relationships- P3 Flashcards
(20 cards)
Eolutionary explanations of sexual selection AO1
- sexual selection= evolutionary explanation of partner preference, attributes that aid reproductive sucess are passed down through generations, females who select partners with these characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring
- adaptive- some characteristics (e.g aggression) are adaptive because they give an advantage for male competitors, these characteristics get passed on
- two types of sexual selection are a result of anisogamy= difference between male and female sex cells/ gametes
-sperm= highly mobile, small, many
-eggs/ova= large, static, limited number, produced for a limited number of years -
intra-sexual selection= competition WITHIN the sexes: strategies to make themself the most likely candidate
-preferred strategy of males
-has led to dimorphism= when males and females adapt to be very different (e.g. in height) -
inter-sexual selection= competition BETWEEN the sexes- preferred strategy of the female
-no shortage of fertile males, but females are ‘rarer’
-Trivers: females invest more time, commitment and energy during and after the birth of their child, they can be choosier as they have more to lose
-Fisher: ‘sexy sons hypothesis’= a female will choose to mate with someone with certain attarctive traits, these will get passed onto the son whp will later be selected for the same ‘sexy’ trait, passing on the genes
Eolutionary explanations of sexual selection AO3
- S: research support for inter-sexual selection: Clark and Hatfield- showed female choosiness exists in heterosexual relationships, psyc students approached people of the opposite sex on thier campus and asked if they would sleep with them, 0% females agreed, 75% males agreed
- S: research support for anisogmany: Buss surveyed 10,000+ adults in 33 countries about how they’d select a partner: females valued resource-related characteristics, males valued reproductive capacity (youth)
- W: HOWEVER ignores social and cultural influences- Bereczkei: women going to work means they are less reliant on males’ resources, this may have changed partner preferences- partner preferences are influenced by social norms (which change quicker than evolution)
-Chang: compared China’s partner preferences over 25 years, found some changed and some stayed the same= partner preferences are a combination of evolution and society - W: not a full explanation- cannot explain the partner preferences of homosexual people, in homosexual relationships, genetic fitness is not a factor
Self disclosure AO1
- Self-disclosure= revealing personal information, romantic partners reveal more aas the relationship goes on, this strengthens the relationship and the feelings of intimacy
Altman and Taylor- social penetration theory= gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
- involves thereciprocal exchange of info (Reis and Shaver- reciprocity/balance is essential)
- revealing sensitive info displays trust so the other must reciprocate
- onion analogy:
1. initially we reveal superficial info- lots of low risk info
2. intimate info
3. personal info
4. core- less info but higher risk= more commitment (depth>breadth)
Self disclosure AO3
- S: research support for reciprocity: Collins and Miller- meta-analysis of correlation between self-disclosure and being liked
-people who disclose more tend to be liked more
-people disclose more to those they initially like
-people like others as a result of having disclosed to them - S: research support
-Larenceaue: used diary entries, found that self-disclosure= higher levels of intimacy
-Sprecher and Hendrick: studied heterosexual relationships and found strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure - HOWEVER: research is correlational
- W: cultural differences- the idea tht self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships depends on culture, Tang- reviewed studies about sexual disclosure and found collectivist cultures rely less on it
- S: real-life applications: marriage counselling techniques can encourage people to disclose more to one-another, Hass and Stafford: 57% gay men and women said S.D was how they maintained their relationship
Phsyical attractiveness AO1
what makes someone attractive:
- Cunningham: men prefer women with neotenous (childlike) features- large eyes, small chin, small nose, and also mature features like strong cheekbones
- Waynforth: women prefer men with masculine features- square jaw, small eyes, symetrical face
- Bruce and young: beauty suggests strong genes, both men and women prefer symmetrical faces
- Singh: cross-cultural preference of 0.7 waist to hip ratio in women and triangular shape in men
- Pawlowski: both sexes prefer 5% longer than average legs
-Langlois: meta-analysis found a cross cultural agreement on attractiveness, however ideal body shapes vary across cultures e.g. tubular shapes are attractive in Peruvian women
the halo effect
- Dion: we have postive pre-conceptions surrounding attractive people
- this can lead to us treating them differently and therfore a self-fulfilling prophecy
the matching hypothesis
- Walster: the tendency to select partners who are of a similar level of attractiveness
- computer dance study: volunteers were rater by judges then randomly paired, the dance was held then they completed a questionairre about how much they liked their partner… physical attractiveness was the most important factor, 6 months later, the more similar (in attractiveness) they were, the more likely they were to meet again
-Murstein: studied 99 real-life couples and compaired them to randomly paired people, real couples were more alike in their attractiveness
Phsyical attractiveness AO3
- S: evolutionary explanation- all of the factors which make someone physically attractive are signs of genetic fitness- shows the importance of physical attraction in the evolutionary process
- W: individual differences- not everyone places high importance on physical attractiveness, and attractiveness is very subjective
- w: contradictory evidence for matching hypothesis: Tyaylor- studied datinf website activity and found that online daters seek more attractive people than themselves (lacks ecological validity)
- S: research support for matching hypothesis…
-Dion: nurses favour attractive children
-Clifford and Walster: teachers favour attractive students
-Palmer and Peterson: attractive people can be percieved as more politically knowledgable (W: negative implications for political system)
Filter theory AO1
- the total number of available people is filtered down to a field of desirables
- we use different filtering methods at different levels of the process
- initially, we filter for social variables (race/class)- we seek similarity
- then we filter for internal variables (personality)- for these we seek complimentarity
-
Kerckhoff and Davis: 5 factors which are important in the filtering process-
1. proximity: geography impacts likelihood of meeting
2. phsycial attraction
3. similarity: in terms of social/cultural background
4. compliment of needs: someone has what we lack
5. competence: how intelligent and competent someone is
Filter model- Kerckhoff and Davis
- 94 students, some had been together 18+ months (long-term), others had been together less than 18 months (short-term), answered questionairres and assessed shared values and complimentarity
- 7 months later their closeness was re-assessed: similarity was important up to 18 months, however long-term complimentarity is important
- findings:
-filter 1= social demographics: only a small number of people in our areas, these tend to be socially similar (homogamy)
-filter 2= similarity in our attitudes (law of attraction)
-filter 3= complimentarity- the partner has traits that the other lacks
Filter theory AO3
- W: contradictory evidence for similarity- Markey and Markey: show that complimentarity isn’t as important in lesbian relationships- lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied, the sample was of couples that had been together a mean of 4.5 years
- S: research support for proximity- Festinger- studied students living over 17 buildings, found those living in the same building were 10x more likely to form a relationship, most likely were those who lived near staircases and letterboxes= functional proximity
- W: ignores the influence of evolutionary factors (reductionist)- we look for genetic strength in a partner
-temporal validity: proximity is less important in a connected world (social media)
-culture bias: in urban cultures we interact with many more people
Social exchange theory AO1
- Thibault and Kelley (1959)
- economic theory
- minimax principle= we attempt to minimise the costs of a relationship and maximise the reward
- we perform a cost-benefit analysis and commit to the relationship if it is profitable
- the ‘exchange’ comes from the fact that people who recieve rewards feel obliged to reciprocate them
- rewards e.g. companionship, sex
- costs e.g. time, effort, money
- 4 stage model:
1. sampling= couples explore rewards and costs in a variety of relationships
2. bargaining= the couple negotiates the relationship and agrees on the rewards and costs
3. commitment= the couple settle into the relationship and the exchange, rewards and costs become predictable
4. institutionalisation= norms and expectations become firmly established - comparison level= how much reward you believe you deserve, this is based on previous experience, social norms and self esteem
- comparison level for alternatives= we stay in relationships when we percieve them as more rewarding than alternatives, in a satisfying relationship you wouldn’t even notice alternatives, Duck: the CLalt we adopt depends on our current relationship, if costs outweigh rewards, we will look for alternatives
Social exchange theory AO3
- S: research support- Kurdek: asked homo/heterosexual couples to complete a questionairre measuring SET variables and commitment, found- those who wre more committed percieved the most reward, fewest costs and viewed alternatives as less attractive
- HOWEVER: SET ignores equity which has been proven to be a very important factor in commitment, percieved fairness is as important as rewards and costs
- W: vague concepts: SET concepts are hard to quantify and are subjective, real-world costs and rewards are hard to quantify, what one person may consider a reward, others may consider a cost
-CL and CLalt are unclear- what extent is required to cause dissatisfaction: theory is hard to test - W: inapproperiate central concepts: assumes relationships are of an economic nature (profit, cost, reward, cost-benefit analysis), Clark and Mills: this cannot apply to relationships as they are communal based- if we ‘kept score’ we would destroy the trust that underpins the relationship
- W: cause and effect may be innaccurate- suggests that dissatisfaction occurs when the relationship stops being profitable, Argyle: we don’t consider costs/rewards/alternatives UNTIL we are dissatisfied
Equity theory AO1
- Walster et al (1978)
- economic theory- suggests that we strive to achieve fairness in relationships and any kind of inequity can cause distress
- equity is not equality: equity= a person’s percieved inputs and outputs, inequity occurs when one person gives more than they recieve
- percieved ratio of inputs and outputs: two people can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity- it’s not about the size of rewards/ costs but the RATIO, e.g. disabled partner/ someone who needs caring for
- underbenefitting and over-benefitting: means the relationship may fail
- correlation between percieved equity and satisfaction
- Walster’s principles of equity theory:
1. dissatisfaction= the greater the degree of unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction
2. realignment= attempts to restore the equity and maintain the relationship
3. distribution= trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness
4. profit= rewards are maximised and costs are minimised
Equity theory AO3
- S: practical applications- marriage counselling- we can try to restore equity if one party feels they are under or overbenefitting
- S: supporting evidence: Utne, surveyed 118 recently married couplesmesuring euquity with two self-report measures, found those who considered themselves more equitable were most satisfied
- W: individual differences- Huseman found that not everyone is concerned with equity, some people are benevolents (prepared to put in more than they get out) whilst some are entitleds (don’t feel guilty for over-benefitting)
- W: contradictory evidence: Berg and McQuinn- theory suggets that satisfying relationships should become more equitable over time, but Berg and McQuinn conducted a longitudinal study and found that it did not increase over time, other factors (like equity) were more important
- W: cultural differences- Aumer-Ryan et al: found that collectivists were more satisfied when they were over-benefitting- theory is not universal
Rusbult’s investment model AO1
- economic theory by Rusbult, expansion on the social exchange theory
- commitment depends on three factors:
1. satisfaction= based on the comparison level, the relationship needs many rewards and few costs
2. comparison with alternatives= could your needs be better met in another relationship
3. investment size= what would I lose if the relationship broke down?
-intrinsic investments= thinkgs we have out directly into the relationship e.g. money, time, energy
-extrinsic investments= shared things that may be lost e.g. a house, a pet, children - satisfaction vs commitment: commitment is the main factor which keeps us in a relationship, but satisfaction plays a role- dissatisfied people may stay together because they are committed
- relationship maintenance mechanisms:
-behavioural: enduring partners display accomodation (don’t always retaliate), willingness to sacrifice,forgiveness
-cognitive: positive illusions (think about the partner as unrealistically positive) and ridicule lternatives (think of alternatives as unrealistically negative
Rusbult’s investment model AO3
- S: can explain abusive relationships, Rusbult and Martz- studied domestically abused women in a shelter, those more likely to return to their partner were the most committed- had the biggest investmen and fewest alternatives= commited but not satisfied
- W: oversimplifies investment: Goodfriend and Agnew- there is more to investment than what you’e put in, they extend the model to include investments in future plans, people stay together to see out these plans
- S: research support- Le and Angnew: metaanalysis of 52 studies, 11000 p’s, from 5 coutnries, satsfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment all predicted commitment, and greater commitment= lasted longer and more stable
- W: HOWEVER: correlationsal- they found strong correlations but from this we cannot assume causation, the direction of causality may be opposite (you’re more committed so you invest more)
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown AO1
- reasons for breakdown:
1. pre-existing doom= incompatible
2. mechanical failure= compatible people grow apart
3. sudden death= traumatic incident e.g. infidelity
breakdown occurs in 4 stages, in each stage we reach a threshold which changes our perspective on the relationship
- intra-psychic
- “I can’t stand this anymore”
- cognitive processes occur within an individual, they worry about their partner’s shortcomings, weigh up pros and cons and alternatives
- don’t discuss this with their partner - dyadic phase (think dy=2)
- “I’d be justified in leaving”
- focus on interpersonal processes, they discuss their dissatisfaction with their partner, they discuss inequity, imbalanced roles, anxiety= deeper self-disclosures
- 2 possible outcomes: renewed desire to repair relationship, or continue its breakdown - social phase
- “I mean it”
- wider processes within the social networl become involved- the break-up is made public and mutual friends take sides
- some friends may try to hasten the end of the realtionship, others may try to repair it
- the breakdown is now driven by social forces - grave-dressing phase
- “Tme to get a new life”
- they conclude the break-up is now inevitable
- focus is now on the aftermath: creating your story for public consumption (which puts you in a positive light)
- Gapia: partners retain ‘social credit’ by blaming circumstances, other people and their ex
- you also create a personal story that you can live with- reinterpret once endearing traits as negative ones
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown AO3
- W: too simplistic- ignores individual differences, relationships are non-linear
- S: HOWEVER, in order to address this Rollie and Duck added a 5th phase “resurrection phase”= here partners learn lessons from their previous relationship and take these into their future relationships
-they also stressed that not everyone passes through every stage in order - W: they don’t address WHY relationships breakdown (ignores free-will), alternative theory: Flemlee’s fatal attraction theory
- S: practical applications- marriage counselling, can use phases to identify where the couple are, and help them come back from it e.g. to talk to eachother rather than worry alone
- W: HOWEVER, cultural relativism: relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frquently come to an end, but in collectivist cultures they involve wider society so are harder to end (so the model doesn’t apply to everyone)
- W: early phases are less understood- much of the research is reterospective, the earlier phases were longer ago so people’s recall may be unreliable/ distorted
Virtual relationships AO1
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships
1. reduced cues theory- Sproull and Kiesler
- virtual relationships lack the cues we depend on in FtF relationships (e.g. non-verbal cues like appearance)
- this leads to de-individuation= reduces sense of individual identity, leads to disinhibition
- this leads to more blunt communication= self-disclosure less likely
2. the hyperpersonal model- Walther
- virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self-disclosure than FtF
- they develop quickly so the self-disclsoure happens earlier, and they are mroe intense and intimate
- someone sending a message has greater contol over what they disclose= selective self-presentation, they can manipulate their self-inage to be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest
- the reciever gains a positive impression and may give feedback which reinforces the sender’s selective self-presentation
- anonymity: Bargh et al- the outcome of anonymity is the ‘strangers on the train effect’= if the reciever doesn’t know your identity, you feel less accountable for your words so can disclose more
Absence of gating- Mckenna and Bargh
- a ‘gate’ is an obstacle which could interfere with a FtF relationship e.g. unattractiveness, social anxiety
- these don’t exist in virtual relationships and by the time they’re revealed, the relationship has already been established
- could result in true self-presentation or false identities
Virtual relationships AO3
- W: lack of support for hyperpersonal model- Ruppel et al: meta-analysis of 25 studies that compared self-disclosures in virtual vs FtF relationships. Findings= self-report studies showed that frrequency, breadth and depth of self disclosures was greater in FtF relationships, but experimental studies showed no difference in self-disclosures between VR and FtF (both contradict the model)
- S: some evidence that they may differ in the type of self-disclosures: Whitty and Joinson- self-presentation is manipulated in VR, questions asked in VR’s may be more probing and intimate (hyperhonest) whereas they may be more small talk in FtF, self presentation was also sometimes hyperdishonest (also supports the model)
- W: lck of support for reduced cues theory: online non-verbal cues are different rather than absent- Walther and Tidwell, online we use cues like message timing and style= there are nuances in online conversation as there are in FtF, emoticons and acronyms may be used to convey emotion= non-verbal cues exist too
- S: support for absence of gating: Mckenna and Bargh- found that shy, lonely or socially anxious people benefit from VR’s and are able to be themselves more, of relationships formed by shy people online, 71% survived vs 49% FtF shy relationships
Parasocial relationships AO1
- parasocial relationships= usually one-sided relationships with celebrities, the target individual is usually unaware they exist, appealing as they have few demands and risks of rejection
- more likely to occur when the target us attractive, percieved as real/ similar, the viewed is shy or loney, the viewer is female
levels of parasocial relationships
- McCutcheon: celebrity attitude scale- used to measure levels of PSR’s, measures… social aspect of celebrity worship (e.g. discussing with friends), intensity of a person’s feelings and obsessional tendencies, potentially harmful aspects of the feelings
- Maltby identified 3 levels of PSR’s using this scale
1. entertainment social= celebs act as fuel for social interactions like gossip
2. intense personal= intense thoughts and feelings for the celeb, like to share these thoughts with others feeling the same way
3. borderline pathological= uncontrollable and extreme behaviours e.g. spending a large sum of money or doing somethign illegal
absorbtion addiction model
- explains how PSR’s become abnormal- some people feel their lives are defficient so may direct their attentions elsewhere to escape reality
- absorbtion= become pre-occupied with focussing all their attentions on theirtarget, begin to identify with them and it forms part of their personal identity
- addiction= absorbtion become addictive, go further and further to maintain satisfaction and fulfillment, leads to extreme and dangerous behaviour and delusional thoughts
attachment theory
- some types of attachment may lead to increased interest in celebs:
- insecure-resistant= needy and clingy, likely to form PSRs, concerned that others will not reciprocate thier desire for intimacy so may turn to celebs or TV characters to meet their ‘unrealistic and often unmet’ relational needs (Cole and Leets)
- insecure-avoidant= least likely to form PSRs, they find it difficult to form any kind of relationship
- secure= unlikely to form PSRs because they often have satisfactory real life relationships
Parasocial relationships AO3
levels of PSR’s
- S: supporting research: McGutcheon used the celebrity attitude scale to measure levels of PSR’s, p’s who score in top 2 levels were more likely to experience high anxiety in real-life intimate realtionships
absorbtion-addiction model
- S: support- research shows link between celeb-worship and body image, Maltby assessed boys and girls (age 14-16) in PSR’s , with particular interest in girls intense-personal PSR’s with a female celeb whose body shape they admired, found that the girls tended to have poor body image and speculated that this might also contibute to eating disorder development
attachment theory
- S: universal tendency: the attachment theory can explain why people all over the world can form PSR’s, Dinkha et al: compared collectivist and individualist cultures and found that in both, those with inscure attachments were the most liekly to form PSR’s
- W: some evidence is contradictory: McCutcheon: measures attachment types and celebtiry related attitudes, found attachment did not impact PSR likelihood
