other stuff need to know

Question 1

Buss

Answer 1

• evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
• 10,000 37 different countries
• used a 4 point scale
• resorurces
• physical attractiveness
• youth
• othe characterstics

Question 2

Physical attractiveness

Answer 2

walster et al

• university of minnesota
• 177 males, and 170 females
• rated on physical attractiveness s
• questionnaire and told randomly used
• did not support matching hypothesis, other factors such as personality and intelligence did not affect liking the dates or any subsequent attempts to date them
• eastwick and finkel - speed dating, followed up 30 days later prior showed traditional sex differences and hten later on no sex differences emgered
• sprecher and hatfield
• Talyor et al - cast doubt, online dating differneces no evidence that they were driven by similarity between their own and potential partners physical attractiveness

Question 3

self disclosure

Answer 3

Spercher et al

• 156 undergradnuate US uni, 2 person dyad
• reciproical and non reciprocal
• skype
• in recpirocal they reported more liking, perceived similarity and enjoyment, showed that taking it in turns is more likely to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes
• collins and miller
• cooper and sportaloari
• Tal or Herchaman Shirtit
• knop et al - self diclose more in offline relationships than in face to face -
• cultural norms

Question 4

attraction filter theory

Answer 4

• Kerckhoof and Davis
• 94 dating couples
• quentionairres
  7 months later
• no immediate correlation, onlyu similarity appeared to be related to partner closeness
• 18 months before and 18 months after - simiarlity of attidues and values was most signigicant predicotr of how close they had been for before 18 months
  then 18 months after complemintarity in needs
• Levinger et la - 330 couples
• duck 0 predictions that wont work
• Twidell et al - tested complex in speed dating, percieved similairy may be more important that actual similarity
• Dijkstra and Barelds 760 colge educated singles,, own personalities were measured then asked to rate ideal characterstics in a mate, support simiarlity attraction hypothesis rather than complementarity of needs hypothesis - strong correlation between individuals own personality and ideals partner personality
• change values

Question 5

social exchange

Answer 5

Kurdek and Schmitt

• 185 couples comprised of 44 hetroseula married couples and 35 co-habiting hetrosexula couples, 50 same sex couples male, 56 same sex female couples
• completed a questionairre
• for each of the differnet four types of couple greater relationship satisfaction was assoicated iwth
• perception of many beneftis of the current relationsip
• seeing alternatives to teh current relatioship as less attractive
• sprecher 101
  -Denton
• Gottman and Levenson - postive to negative ratio is 5:1 ratio was lower at 1:1
  christensen et al - 60 distressed, 2/3 reported feeling better

Question 6

equity

Answer 6

stafford and canary

• intersted in equity and satisfaction
• asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction and asked about relationship matinenance
• findings revealed that satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationships as equitable, then over benefitted, then under benefitted - low levels of maintenance strategies
• huseman et al
• demairs et al, sprecher et al
• aumer-ryan et al
• Brosnan and de wall
• clark - dnt thing in terms of reward and equity, - Hpatigield and raposn suggest that in failing marriages both processes might be operating, when marriages are faltering partners become preoccurpioed

Question 7

investment model

Answer 7

le and agnew

• 52 studies conducted between late 1970s and 1990s - each studies have explored difference components of the investment model
• 11000 participants
• satisfaction level, quality of alternati ves and investment size were highly correlated with relationship commitment
• correlation betwene satisfaction level and commitemnt 68
• quality of alternatives 48
• investment size 45
• more likley to stay if have higher level of commitment being more likley to stay in a relationship nad those with lower levels more likley to leave

Question 8

virtual relationships

Answer 8

• Jourard - proposed concept of broadcasting self disclosure to explain differneces between disclosure to a romantic partner and the sharing of personal information individual presents an edited version to the self of others
• depend on who they are disclosing to
• rosenfield and Thomas 0 demonstrated the importance of the internet and soical media - 4000 adultsw found that indivduuals with internet access were more likley to be partnered 71.8, 35.9, even after controlling for other important variable such as age, gender and education seuxal preference and religion 0- twice as likey to have a partner
• Thomas - found no evidence to support the claim that vitrual relaitonships are not as strong as offline relationships. claimed that it can be superficioal
• tamir and mitchell - found evidence for a biological basis for the motivation to self dislcose on the internet
• found mri activity in the two brain regions - nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area - strongly activtiated when person talking about themselves and less so when talking about someone esle
• baker and oswald argue that virtual are particularly helpful for shy people - overcome barriers, surveyed 207 male and female students about shyness facebook usage and quality of their friendships, for students who socred high for shyness greater use of facebook was associated with higher perceptions of firendship quality , those who scored lowly facebook usuage was not assoicated with peception of friendship quality
• zhao et al - claim that we should not think of offline world as being completely separate, allows indivduals to bypass gating obsetances

Question 9

parasocial

Answer 9

proximity seeking
secure base
protest at disruption

• cole and leets some people are more likley to develpo through attachment type, avoidant, were keast lkkely to enter - difficult to develop imintate relationshps
• lange et al
• introverted nature - if level of absorption is high enough then person may moveon to higher levels of parasocial interaction
• schiappa et al - meta nayalssis
• Eyal and Cohen - loneliness linked 279
• Maltby et al - epq
• israeli study 381
• S hmid and Kilmmt - no differnece, found commonalities between their own lives and relationships and those potrayed in films and books