Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology AQA > Relationships - Paper 3 > Flashcards

Relationships - Paper 3 Flashcards

(57 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is sexual selection

A

Any genes which are advantageous for survival and nature selected. Promote successful reproduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is anisogamy

A

The difference between male and female sex cells. Male (sperm) plentiful whereas female are expensive.

Fertile females are rarer resource

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Inter-sexual selection

A

Selection of mates between sexes

Female - quality over quantity - investment time, commitment - provide resources

Impact - attributes passed on - e.g. height, runaway process constantly taller males

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Intra sexual selection

A

Selection of mates within sexes

Male strategy - quantity over quality - traits contribute to victory

Physical consequences - bigger win competition

Behavioural consequences - aggressiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Evaluate evolutionary explanations for parter preferences

A

+ research support inter - Clark et al - students, no females agreed to have sex but 75% males agreed
- counter - Buss et al - oversimplistic one strategy adaptive for one and one another - both seek long term

+ Buss et al intra - 10,000 adults, important preferences, females resources, males physical attractiveness

  • social and cultural influences - women work so don’t need resources
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is self - disclosure

A

Revealing intimate information to another person.

Most people afraid to disclose too much too soon

Important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is social penetration theory (SPT)

A

Altman and Taylor gradual process of revealing inner self

Gain trust

Reciprocate and reveal personal information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

SPT - Penetration

A

Leads to development - increasingly disclose more information as penetrate

Depenetration how dissatisfied partners self disclose less as they disengage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

SPT - Breadth

A

Narrow to begin with

Too much info is revealed may be off-putting and one partner may quit the relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

SPT - depth

A

Develops more layers are gradually revealed

Reveal more intimate info including painful memories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Reciprocity of self disclosure

A

Shaver et al - received sensitively by other partner. Further self disclosure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Evaluation of self disclosure

A

+ research support - Sprecher et al - strong correlations between satisfaction and self disclosure - more committed
- correlation not causation - could be more time or satisfied disclose

  • culture bias - Tang et al - US more than China - no satisfaction difference - not generalisable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Explaining the importance of attractiveness symmetry

A

Shackelford et al - symmetrical face more attractive - genetic fitness can’t be faked - evolutionary explanation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Baby face as attractive

A

Neotenous feature thought to trigger protective and caring instincts, formation of attachment in infancy

Evolutionary - naturally selected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Halo effect describes how physical is generalised

A

Preconceived ideas about the attributes of physical attractive people. All other attributes are positive

Dion et al physically attractive people are consistently rates as kind, strong and successful compared to unattractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Walster et al - matching hypothesis

A

Choose partners who match us in attractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Walster et al - matching hypothesis procedure

A

Computer dance - students rated on physical attractiveness by observers who completed questionnaires

Told data used to pair partners, but in fact randomly paired

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Walster et al - matching hypothesis - findings

A

Physically attractive partners liked the most and more likely asked on a date

Berscheid et al replicated and chose partner similar attractiveness

Avoid rejection by physically attractive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Evaluation of physical attractiveness

A

+ research support halo - Palmer et al - attractive rated more politically knowledgable and competent - dangers for democracy.

  • research doesn’t support matching hypothesis - Taylor et al - online dating activity logs - people sought dates were more physically attractive than themselves
    + counter - Feingold’s meta analysis - correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is filter theory

A

Fields of available and field of desirable

Kerckhoff and Davis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The first filter - social demography

A

Factors that influence chances of meeting

Geographical location and social class

Homogamy - partner similar to you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

The 2nd filter - similarity in attitudes

A

Sharing belief and values - agreeing

Law of attraction - Byrne mutual attraction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

The 3rd filter - complementarity

Study These Flashcards
A

Partner meet other needs - complement

24
Q

Evaluation of filter theory

Study These Flashcards
A

+ Support from Kerckhoff and Davis - dating couples questionnaire, closeness linked to similarity of values, complementarity more important in long lasting
- counter - not replicated - social changes but partner more than 18 months must be committed, lack validity

  • complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction - lesbian Nero satisfied when both dominant
25
What is social exchange theory
It assumes that relationships are guided by the minimax principle. Thibault and Kelley - economics - satisfaction in terms of profit Profitable continue unprofitable fail
26
What is the nature of costs and rewards
Cost include time or stress Rewards include sex, praise or companionship Opportunity cost - investment as cost elsewhere
27
The comparison level - SET
Comparison level measure profit - reward level we believe we deserve
28
Comparison level for alternatives - SET
Consider wether er might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in different Duck suggests it depends on current relationship
29
The four stages of relationships - SET
1. Sampling stage involves exploring rewards and costs by experimenting 2. Bargaining stage start where negotiate around costs and rewards 3. Commitment stage relationships become more stable 4. Institutionalisation stage partners become settled - norms established
30
Evaluation of social exchange theory
- concepts are vague - rewards and costs are subjective and hard to define - comparison levels problematic + research support - Kurdeck - interview homo and hetro - committed had most rewards and fewer costs - concepts independent of each other - validity - counter - ignore role of equity - not balance of rewards and costs but partners perception that this is fair - limited
31
What is equity theory
Most people have a need for equity - SET suggest partners aim to maximise rewards and minimise costs. Walster eta l equity is more important where both partners level of profit should be the same
32
Underbenefitting and overbenefitting
Lead to dissatisfaction Under least satisfied and feelings evident in anger and resentment Over less dissatisfied but is still likely feel discomfort or shame
33
Equity is about fairness of the ratios
It’s not the size or amount of the reward and cost that matters but ratio
34
What are the consequences of inequity
Impacts negatively - positive correlation between Changes happen overtime - start contribute more
35
How to deal with inequity
Underbenefitting partner - more equitable if salvageable Change cognitive rather than behavioural - revise their perceptions What was perceived as cost can be accepted as norm
36
Evaluation of equity theory
+ research support - Utne et al - survey recently married - more than 2 years before marrying - equitable more satisfied - counter - Berg et al - equity not distinguish between relationships which ended than continued - other more important. - culture bound - individualist more satisfied when equitable - collectivist more when overbenefitting
37
Rusbult’s model - the investment model
An extension of SET - A satisfying relationship where getting more out of relationship than expected.
38
Commitment - Rusbult’s model
3 factors 1. Satisfaction - extent the rewards as felt 2. Comparison with alternatives - judgement about wether a relationship with different partner would increase rewards or costs 3. Investment - resources associated which would be lost if ended
39
Intrinsic and extrinsic investment - Rusbult’s
Intrinsic - resource directly into the relationship Extrinsic - investments that previously didn’t feature in the relationship
40
Commitment determined by (Rusbult’s)
Satisfaction + alternatives + investment High satisfaction, alternatives less attractive, size of investment increasing
41
Satisfaction v commitment - Rusbult’s
Commitment main factor causes to stay in romantic relationship, satisfaction contributes to commitment
42
Relationship maintenance mechanisms - Rusbult’s
- promoting their relationship - putting their partners interest first - forgiving them for any serious transgression
43
Evaluation of Rusbult’s model
+ research support - meta analysis - satisfaction, CLalt, and investment predicted commitment - stability and longevity - across cultures and homosexual - universally important + why people stay in abusive relationship - fewer alternatives and greater investment - go back - satisfaction on own - oversimplifies investment - more to invest than just resources - future plans motivate to commit - limited
44
Ducks phase model?
Ending of relationship is not a one off event - process 4 distinct phases Each phase has a threshold
45
The 4 phases of Duck’s model
Intra-psychic phase Dyadic phase Social phase Grave dressing phase
46
What is the intra-psychic phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I can’t stand you’ - something has to change Dissatisfied Keep to themselves but share with trusted friend - weighing up pros and cons
47
Dyadic phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’ Partner concludes justified ending - discuss partner - equity, commitment Ironically self disclosure more frequent as feel reveal true feelings
48
Social phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I mean it’ Support from joint friends Friends choose a side or go between News public, place of no return
49
Grave dressing phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘it’s now inevitable’ Prepare for wider consumption Ensure that the storyteller judged favourably Final threshold - new life
50
Evaluation of Ducks phase model
+ application real world - some repair might be more effective at one stage - communication dyadic - supportive insight - model incomplete - resurrection - apply what previously learned - complexity of breakdown and dynamic nature - early phases less well explained - report not be accurate - first longer ago so distorted
51
Virtual relationships - self disclosure
Self disclosure different Reduced cues theory - less effective lack nonverbal cues - deindividuation - blunt and aggressive Hyper personal model - quicker in virtual - sender control - receives feedback reinforce self presentation Anonymity important
52
Effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships
Gate = obstacles in face to face Absence causes true self but untrue identities
53
Evaluation of virtual relationships and social media
+ support for absence of gating in virtual - McKenna et al - shy and socially anxious - 71% online mroe than 2 years (49% offline) - lack support for reduced cues - not absent but different - intimate as take time - acronyms, emoticons and emojis effective substitute - lack research for hyper personal model - Ruppel et al meta analysis - compared frequency, breadth and depth self disclosure - experimental no sig diff
54
What are the levels of parasocial relationships
The celebrity attitude scale - Maltby et al 1. Entertainment social - lowest 2. Intense personal - personally involved 3. Borderline pathological - fantasies uncontrollable and behaviour extreme
55
The absorption addiction model - parasocial
McCutcheon - make up personal deficiencies Escape mundane lives Intense personal from stressful event Absorption - fulfilment in celebrity worship Addiction - increase dose of involvement to gain satisfaction
56
Attachment theory explanation of parasocial
Early attachment problems - Bowlby - early difficulties - preference parasocial Insecure attachment - resistant = unfulfilled needs met and no threat of rejection avoidant = avoid pain of rejection
57
Evaluation os parasocial relationships
- causation v correlation - studies association - valuable for insight links but caution + attachment theory applied universally - all cultures + research absorption addiction - Maltby et al - female poor body image - eating disorder - correlation + levels approach research - higher levels have high anxiety in intimate

Psychology AQA (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions