EVALUATION PAPER 3 Flashcards
sexual selection
Clarke and Hatfield (male and female psych students on campus), Waynforth and Dunbar (lonely hearts adverts), partner preferences over the last century have undoubtedly been influenced by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour (quicker than evolution)
physical attractiveness theory
Palmer and Peterson (physical attractiveness = politically knowledgeable), Touhey (sexist people care more about physical attractiveness)
matching hypothesis theory
Berscheid et al (people chose dance partners who matched them), Taylor et al (online dating websites: online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them)
filter theory
Kerchoff and Davis (longitudinal study – similarity in attitudes and values important in the ST, LT = complementarity, filter theory assumes that the key factors in a relationship change over time (RWA of successful marriages), research has found that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time, but other research has found that romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s
self disclosure theory
theory can be used to explain why relationships developed online may not succeed, Sprecher and Hendrick (correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure), much self-disclosure research is correlational (less internal validity)
self disclosures in virtualrelationships
extent and depth of self-disclosure is dependent on the type of online communication, Whitty and Joinson (online questions tend to be more direct and personal)
absence of gating in virtual relationships
McKenna and Bargh (online communication by socially anxious people = more likely to succeed in relationships), BOTH: Walther (theories fail to take into account that almost all relationships are multi-modal)
social exchange theory
Kurdek (questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables), Clark and Mills (theory fails to distinguish between work and personal relationships), concepts of SET are difficult to quantify (rewards and costs have been superficially defined)
equity theory
Utne et al (couples who considered their relationship more equitable = more satisfied than under/over benefitting), McQuinn (equity did not increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples), Clark and Mills (theory fails to distinguish between work and personal relationships)
rusbult’s investment model
Le and Agnew (satisfaction, Clalt and investment size all predicted relationship commitment), Rusbult and Martz (battered women’s shelter), strong correlations
duck’s model of relationship breakdown
RWA (ways to reverse a relationship breakdown), most research involves retrospective reports after the relationship has broken down, most research is based on Western, individualist cultures and so the theory suffers from cultural relativism.
levels of parasocial relationships
McCutheon et al (celebrity attitude scale and anxiety in real relationships)
parasocial relationships: absorption-addiction model
Maltby et al (link between celebrity worship and body image in teenagers), better description than an explanation
parasocial relationships: attachment theory
Schmid and Klimmt (insecurely attached formed a parasocial relationship with Harry Potter in all cultures), research relies on retrospective accounts/evidence
free will vs determinism
D=doubtful that it would ever be 100% found in twin studies, D=position is incompatible with our notions of legal responsibility, FW=everyday experience gives the impression that we are constantly choosing our thoughts and actions, FW=activity in motor areas of the brain before having conscious awareness
nature-nurture
life experiences can shape biology = interactionist approach is more appropriate, strong commitment to both = hard determinism so interactionist is better, constructivism (people create their own nurture by actively seeking environments that are appropriate for their nature
holism and reductionism
R=possible to break behaviour down into its constituent parts and scientifically test them, R=explanations oversimplify complex phenomena, H=difficult to rigorously test scientifically and can become vague and speculative as they become too complex, H=more complete understanding of behaviour
idiographic and nomothetic approaches
I=in-depth, provides a complete and global account of the individual, I=qualitative methods are open to bias, N=more scientific, so makes psychology more credible as a science, N=preoccupation with general laws is said to have led to ‘losing the whole person’ within psychology