Relationships [U10] Flashcards
(30 cards)
1
Q
Clark & Hatfield on reproductive strategy
A
- Approached students on university campus
- Asked “Will you go to bed with me tonight?”
- 75% of men agreed, 0% of women agreed
- Women are choosier and there is a distinction in mating strategies between the two sexes.
2
Q
Oversimplification of Sexual Selection
A
- Claims strategies are universal
- Some men demonstrate long-term mating and investment
- Some women engage in short-term mating for genes and resources
- Human behaviour is too flexible and complex to restrict each sex to a single mating strategy
3
Q
Lawson on sexual selection in homosexuals
A
- Sexual selection is based on genetic fitness, which homosexual partners don’t seek
- Identified that personal ads between heterosexual men/women and homosexual men/women demonstrated the same gender differences (Lawson)
- Regardless of orientation, all people use similar strategies and assess genetically-related traits
- Important in raising offspring
4
Q
Laurenceau et al. & Sprecher and Hendrick in support of self-disclosure’s importance
A
- Positive Correlation between self-disclosure & relationship satisfaction (S&H)
- Couple Diary Study. Relationships penned as having greater (perceived) SD were more intimate, and lack of intimacy was associated with low SD levels (Lea.)
- Reinforces validity of SD being an important factor in relationship intimacy
5
Q
Tang et al. on cultural differences in self-disclosure
A
- In the USA, romantic partners disclose more personal, sexual thoughts and feelings to one another (Relative to China)
- Relationship satisfaction is equally high in both (Tang et al.)
- SD isn’t as important in some cultures, so other theories or factors (e.g. attractiveness) may be influential
6
Q
Duck on self-disclosure at relationship breakdown
A
- SPT suggests breakdown is due to a lack of self-disclosure
- In reality, one partner discloses deeper and more frequently despite deterioration (Duck)
- It is limited, since it cannot explain how relationships break down
7
Q
Taylor et al. against the matching hypothesis in contemporary psychology
A
- Studied activity logs of a popular dating site
- Aimed to measure actual date choices, instead of partner preferences
- Partners did NOT match based on their own attractiveness online
- Suggests matching hypothesis fails to apply to modern dating techniques
8
Q
Feingold against Taylor et al, in support of the matching hypothesis
A
- Analysed 17 studies in a meta-analysis
- Identified a correlation between both partners’ attractiveness ratings
- Criticised Taylor’s results as the ideal fantasy of participants, not the reality of who they get with
- The matching hypothesis is real
9
Q
Touhey on individual factors affecting attractiveness’ importance
A
- Asked participants to rate their liking of example people based on short biography and photograph
- Same participants performed a sexist attitudes questionnaire
- Those who scored higher on the SA scale prioritised and were more influenced by attractiveness, and vice versa
10
Q
Kerckhoff & Davis’ original longitudinal study
A
- In couples together for < 19 months, relationship closeness was correlated with attitude similarity
- In other couples, complimentarity was a better predictor of closeness
- Provides evidence for theory’s predictions and overall theory
11
Q
The issues of replicating Kerckhoff & Davis’ findings, Levenger
A
- It’s difficult to quantitatively measure length and depth of relationship, and thus to determine short-term Vs. long-term
- K & D set the threshold at 18 months
- Some couples take longer to reach the point of attitude similarity being important, others skip the sociodemographic stage and are “earlier”
- Lack of explanative power undermines credibility
12
Q
Contemporary Dating Methods & Filter Theory
A
- Modern online dating vastly expands field of availables beyond physical location and demographic factors
- Concepts, like “swiping”, make attractiveness more important than demographical similarities
- Fosters more inter-cultural and inter-ethnic relationships
- Social Demography is an outdated filter
13
Q
Argyle on the Causal relationship of SET
A
- People don’t assess their relationship before feeling dissatisfied (Argyle)
- People’s unhappiness may lead them to evaluate their relationship’s profits and their alternatives, but only after feeling dissatisfied
- Contradicts SET, which assumes profit assessment guides all relationship maintenance
14
Q
High Reductionism of SET
A
- SET reduces complex relationships to economic benefits, overlooking the wide array of emotional factors and nuance to romantic relationships
- This reductionism limits explanative power, such as in the case of abusive relationships (High costs, low rewards)
- A holistic approach is more appropriate for such a complex behaviour
15
Q
Kurdek in support of SET and its universality
A
- Relationship staisfaction is based on rewards/costs, independent of specific relationship structure
- Ppts. who reported fewer costs and higher rewards had higher relationship satisfaction
- People assess relationships based on perceived rewards & costs
16
Q
Utne et al. in support of Equity theory over SET
A
- Surveyed 118 newly-wed couples with two self-report scales
- Aged 16-45 and had been together for 2 years prior
- Those who perceived equity were more satisfied than over/under benefiters
- Confirms the central prediction and lends validity
17
Q
Hussman et al. on the over-generalisation of Equity Theory
A
- Not all desire equity
- Benevolents = Willing to contribute more and under-benefit
- Entitleds = Believe they deserve to over-benefit without guilt or distress
- Neither strives for, or bases, satisfaction, off of equity
- It is not a universal factor
18
Q
Berg & McQuinn on ‘developing’ equity over time
A
- Longitudinal study on 38 dating couples
- Equity did not develop over time
- High SD and perceived equity at start predicted long-term relationships, and vice versa
- It’s a black-white case, not an “over-time” one
- Discredits equity’s central claims and highlights importance of SD
19
Q
Rusbult & Martz on the RIM’s explanative power
A
- RIM can explain abusive relationships
- Women at a domestic abuse refuge who had few attractive alternatives and the greatest investment were most likely to return to an abusive partner
- The women were dissatisfied but still committed
- Demonstrates investment works alongside satisfaction in commitment
20
Q
Le & Agnew in support of Rusbult’s Investment Model and its universality
A
- Meta-analysis of 52 studies including 11,000 participants across 5 countries
- Satisfaction, alternatives & investment all predicted commitment to relationship
- The highest commitment led to the most stable & long-lasting relationships
- True for both sexes, homosexuals and all included cultures
- Factors are universally important
21
Q
Goodfriend & Agnew on the oversimplification of RIM’s investment
A
- Cannot explain commitment of early couples, as it only acknowledges already-made investments
- They extended the model to include future plans that couples have, and the desire to see them play out
- Fails to depict complexity of investment
22
Q
Rollie & Duck/Tashiro & Frazier on the extension of Duck’s Phase model
A
- R&D proposed the fifth stage, the Resurrection stage
- Partners redirect attention to future relationships and use experiences gained from last one
- Undergraduates post-break up reported personal growth & emotional distress (T&F)
- Stages aren’t linear, deterministic progression, but regression to earlier stages can occur (T&F)
- Accounts for OG model’s inability to explain dynamic differences in break-ups
23
Q
Phase Model’s basis in retrospective data
A
- Interviews and questionnaires about break-ups after they’ve happened
- Inaccurate memories and personal biases lead to a lack of validity
- Early stages of breakdown often ignored / heavily distorted
- Also impossible to study at the beginning of relationship breakdown, as involvement may worsen/hasten the situation/process
- Duck’s research ignores the earliest stages, and isn’t a comprehensive explanation
24
Q
Applying Duck’s Phase Model to Counselling
A
- Useful in relationship counselling for reversing breakdown
- Specific strategies more effective at specific stages of breakdown
- Intrapsychic = Person should brood on positive aspects of their partner
- Dyadic = Improving communication and social ability is beneficial in fostering stability
- Not much use in later stages
- Can help couples considering break-up to improve and sustain their relationship
25
Walther & Tidwell against Reduced Cues Theory
- Little supporting research
- Cues aren't absent, but different
- Style and timing of messages conveys info
- Too long is a snub, too quickly is blunt
- Abbreviations like FML and LOL, as well as emoticons, convey emotion to substitute facial expression and tone of voice
- CMC communication can be just as emotional and personal as F2F communication, contradicting RCT
26
Whitty & Joinson on self-disclosure differences in CMC relationships
- Self-disclosure does differ between CMC and F2F (Summarised evidence by W&J)
- Questions asked in online sessions are direct, probing & intimate
- People invent attractive qualities for their online profiles (HPM)
- Lacks the "small talk" present in F2F interactions
- Supports hyper-honesty / dishonesty concepts and highlights differences
27
Walther on the multi-modality of relationships
- Any theory explaining CMC relationships, including self-disclosure, needs to consider most relationships are online and offline, using different media
- The two cannot be rationally separated, as what we disclose in our online interactions is intrinsically influenced by our offline interactions and vice versa
- Since no theories take this into account, this means most are fundamentally incomplete
28
Dinkha et al. on the universality of parasocial predictors
- Ppts. in USA & Kuwait
- Those with insecure attachment types were more likely to develop PSRs to TV personalities and fictional characters
- The formation & need for parasocial relationships, and its attachment roots, are universal
29
Maltby et al. in support of the absorption-addiction model
- Assessed 14-16 years old
- Females reporting an intense PSR who admired their idol's body figure tended to have poor body image
- Also associations between poor psychological functioning and PSR intensity
- Could contribute to eating disorders
- Reinforces PSRs develop in the wake of deficiencies
30
Maltby's work as a flawed correlation (Counter-point)
- Assumes conditions develop due to deficiencies
- Direction of causality could be that the relationship causes the deficiencies
- Third party variables could be neuroticism, which causes both deficiency and PSR
