Relationships studies

Question 1

Feingold - matching hypothesis

Answer 1

meta analysis of studies where the rating of couples were correlated, +0.39 correlation (moderate, moderate strong)

Question 2

Feingold - attractiveness

Answer 2

correlation was stronger for long term couples than short term couples

Question 3

Silverman

Answer 3

covert operation of couples in real dating contexts, more similar couples appear happier

Question 4

Towhey

Answer 4

those who scored high on MACHO scale (measures tradition views) more influenced by physical attractiveness in potential partners

Question 5

Cunningham’s

Answer 5

white, Hispanic and Asian males prefer neotenous features

Question 6

evidence for importance of symmetry

Answer 6

,many studies, using different methods

Question 7

wheeler and kim

Answer 7

halo effect- American and Korean students judged attractive people to be trustworthy, mature and friendly

Question 8

Sprecher and Hendrick

Answer 8

+0.3 correlation between self disclosure and satisfaction - moderate

Question 9

Collins and Miller

Answer 9

meta analysis- people who disclose at intimate levels are more liked than those who disclose at lower levels

Question 10

correlational and experimental studies for disclosure and liking

Answer 10

correlational - +0.39 (moderate)

experimental- +0.27 (small effect)

Question 11

Tang

Answer 11

study in china - self disclosure leads to liking but disclosure of sexual feelings not appropriate (not universal?)

Question 12

Laurenceau

Answer 12

longitudinal study of content analysis from diaries of couples - higher levels of intimacy linked with self disclosure

Question 13

self disclosure vs initial attraction

Answer 13

same correlation of +0.39 for attractiveness of couples and liking and self disclosure - similar influence

Question 14

3 methods to identify importance of similarity in relationships

Answer 14

1. surveys of couples- questions on 3 filters conducted longitudinally
2. experiments, phantom stranger - exposed to description of a stranger who is either similar to them or not
3. online dating studies - analysis of contacts people make/ how similar they are

Question 15

Mendelsohn

Answer 15

study of online dating, % of contacts made by white males
80% white
3% black
17% other

Question 16

Gruber - Baldini

Answer 16

longitudinal study - those similar in education level at the start more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship

Question 17

phantom stranger studies

Answer 17

people like those who resemble similar attitudes more than those who don’t

Question 18

general trend in evidence for complementarity in filter theory

Answer 18

couples tend to be more emotionally similar than different exception - females more attracted to males who are dominant but not vice versa

Question 19

Rusbult

Answer 19

increase in rewards led to an increase in satisfaction and changes in costs didn’t significantly affect satisfaction.

Question 20

le and agnew (SET)

Answer 20

meta analysis, percentage of variance in commitment explained by:
satisfaction - 30%
comparison to alternatives - 15%

Question 21

Clarke and mill

Answer 21

common couples happier than exchange couples - close tracking of rewards and costs led to an unhappy relationship

Question 22

Walster and utne

Answer 22

those in equitable relationships were the most content, those who under-benefitted felt most anger and lower contentment and those who significantly over benefitted felt most guilt and lower contentment
walster-students utne-married couples

Question 23

aumer-ryan

Answer 23

cross cultural study where equitable couples were the mot satisfied in individualist cultures but not collective cultures

Question 24

Berg and McQuinn

Answer 24

longitudinal study of dating couples

1. equity did not increase over time in couples in satisfying relationships
2. equity did not predict if couples stayed together (self disclosure did)

Question 25

addition to Le and Agnew - investment

Answer 25

% contribution of 4 variables to commitment:
30% satisfaction
15% comparison to alternatives
15% investment
40% other factors
(+0.47 correlation moderate correlation between commitment and whether pps stay together)

Question 26

Rusbult and Martz

Answer 26

in abusive relationships - both comparison for alternatives and investment predicted when victims returned to abusive partners

Question 27

evidence for Duck’s phase model

Answer 27

retrospective surveys - results rely on memory which may be faulty or biased based on social desirability. questions may have shaped story to fit the story

Question 28

Buss

Answer 28

cross-cultural questionnaire from 37 cultures
men look for looks and youth - fertility
women look for income and ambition - care for offspring

Question 29

Waynforth and Dunbar

Answer 29

content analysis of lonely hearts ads
men sought for looks and provided resources
women sought resources and provided looks

Question 30

Clark and Hatfield

Answer 30

quasi experiment:
75% of men agreed to sex, more chance for reproduction- less choosy
0% of women agreed, risk of pregnancy with partner with poor genes/ weak investment

Question 31

Singh

Answer 31

cross cultural study of waist-hip ratio

universal presence for women with WHR of 0.7

Question 32

Joinson

Answer 32

content analysis of levels of self disclosure:

anonymous CMC > CMC via video link = FtF discussion

Question 33

Ruppel

Answer 33

meta analysis of studies of self disclosure:

greater self disclosure FtF rather than CMC 0.2 correlation (contradicts hyperpersonal model)

Question 34

McKenna and Bargh

Answer 34

lonely and anxious people able to express true selves more in CMC 70% of relationships formed online survived more than 2 years

Question 35

3 studies of characteristics displayed by those with PRs

Answer 35

Maltby(2005)- poor body image
Maltby et al- anxiety and depression
McCutcheon(2014)- impulsiveness

Question 36

studies that do/ do not support attachment theory

Answer 36

Cole and Leets - yes
Cohen - yes
McCutcheon - no
(all are correlation problems identifying cause and effect)