PSY3 Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
**Formation: **
Reward/need satisfaction theory (Byrne/Clore)
A
- Operant/classical conditioning
- Attracted to those who meet our needs
- If potential partner has potential to meet need we have (financial security/compsnionship), interaction is rewarding
- We may seek to form relationship through mechanisms of positive reward/operant
- Like people simply associated w/ pleasant circumstances
- Can become positively evaluated when we meet them in pleasant context (e.g. party) - classical
2
Q
Evaluation of reward/need satisfaction theory
A
-
Griffitt & Guay - ppts liked experimenter who gave positive eval of performance on task, compared to ppts who got bad eval from same experimenter
- we like positive reinforcement (operant)
- Onlooker rarely highly in condition w/ positive evaluation (classical)
- we like positive reinforcement (operant)
-
Lab study - low ecological validity; real-world relationships occur in context of culture/social exp
-
not real study of relationships?
- pp’s brought together for short period of time, then obliged to make h. artificial evaluation of a stranger (experimenter)
- they don’t become ‘friends’ - wrong to imply this is a ‘relationship’
- pp’s brought together for short period of time, then obliged to make h. artificial evaluation of a stranger (experimenter)
-
not real study of relationships?
-
Not full exp. of why we like certain ppl:
- many have potential to meet our needs, but we’re usually selective in relationships
- doesn’t exp. how this selection’s achieved
- may be due to similarity - h. rewarding, meets special need and may exp. why
-
Hays - not all relationships based on measurable rewards:
- model over-emphasises imp. of reward
- we also take pleasure from giving
- relationships not solely based on rewards
- model over-emphasises imp. of reward
-
IDA Cultural differences - doesn’t account for cultural/gender differences
- Lott: women socialised into being more attentive to needs of others, rather than towards self-gratification, in many cultures
3
Q
Formation:
Similarity/matching hypothesis (Byrne, Clore & Smeaton)
A
- Drawn to ppl w/ similar personalities/attitudes to self
- We sort potential partners for dissimilarity - avoid ppl w/ different personalities/attitudes
- From remaining, we choose most similar to self
- Thus, likely to form relationships w/ people similar to ourselves
4
Q
Evaluation of similarity/matching hypothesis
A
-
Opposites attract (sometimes) - makes sense w. spec. traits e.g. dominance.
-
Winch outlined complimentary needs hypothesisis
- certain trains better met by pairing w/ opposite, but complimentary traits
-
Winch outlined complimentary needs hypothesisis
-
*Rosenbaum* - dissimilarity-repulsion hypothesis: dissimilarity more imp than similarity
- Signh/Tan in Singapore/Drigotas in US found ppts first attracted due to similarities but those who discovered more dissimilarities than similarities became less attracted to e/o
- Kerchoff - married partners typically fr same socio-economic/religious groups w/ similar levels intelligence/educational backgrounds
-
Limitations - research on similarity majorly focused on attitudes/personalities
- only rep narrow view of factors imp. in formations
- e.g. similarity of self-concept, economic level and physical cond. also important
- Speakman - people often choose partners w/ similar body fat.
- e.g. similarity of self-concept, economic level and physical cond. also important
- only rep narrow view of factors imp. in formations
5
Q
Maintenance:
** Social exchange theory (Thibaut/Kelley)**
A
- Social behav. series of exchanges b/w individuals, each attempts to max rewards, min cost; relationships must be profitable!
- Rewards - exchanged resources that are gratifying Costs - loss of time/opportunities
- Comparison level - std at which relationships are judged; min level of profit we’re willing to accept
- Comparison level for alt - lowest level of reward person willing to accept from alt. or no relationship at all
6
Q
Evaluation of the social exchange theory
A
-
Rusbult/Martz - exp. why ppl stay in abusive relationships
- investments high (financial stability/children) and alt. low (no house/money), may be considered a profit situation, so woman stays
-
Rusbult - imp. of alt. in relationships:
- when consier ending, weigh reward/cost w/ potential alt.
- college students over 7months
- social desirability bias
- pp’s young, West, heterosexual
- college students over 7months
- when consier ending, weigh reward/cost w/ potential alt.
-
SET limitations:
- human relationships essentially selfish; main interest in maintenance determined by selfish concerns
- many don’t fit w/ this!
- e.g. arranged marriages
-
IDA Cultural bias:
- Moghaddam: econ. theories make sense in societies where encouraged to become self-focused
-
collectivist cultures pay less attention to personal profit
- duty, loyalty and obligation likely to play imp. role
- SET doesn’t rep. universal exp. of relationship maintenance
7
Q
Maintenance:
Equity theory (Walster)
A
- Ppl concerned w/ perceived fairness of relationship
- Inequitable relationships produce dissatisfaction
- Any inequity has potential to create distress
- ppl who put great deal into relationship and get little in return would perceive inequity, same w/ ppl who receive great deal and give little in return
- In relationship, ppl seek to ensure they’re neither under-rewarded/over-rewarded; constantly monitor input:output ratio
- Partners may employ various maintenance strat. to restore equity e.g moving in to show commitment
8
Q
Evaluation of equity theory
A
- Berschied & Walster - large scale study found couples perceived h. levels of inequity in releationship were less likely to still be together in 3 months, than those w/ h. level equity
-
Gender differences - studies suggest men may feel angry of perceived inequity, whereas women feel sadness
- Kahn: men emphasise equity (what you get out should be same as what’s put in)
- women more concerned w/ equality (both should receive equal benefits regardless of how much is put into relationship)
- equity doesn’t mean same thing for men and women!
-
IDA Real-world application - couples in failed marriages freq. report lack of postive behav exchanges:
- primary goal of relationship therapy to inc. prop of positive excha.
- IBCT helps partners to break negative patterns of behav that cause probs, making e/o happier! (Jacobsen)
- Christensen treated over 60 couples using IBCT - 2/3 reported signif. improvements in quality of relationships
9
Q
Breakdown: model of relationships (Rollie/Duck)
A
Breakdown in series of processes:
1⃣ BREAKDOWN - realisation of dissatisfaction w/ relationship
2⃣ INTRAPSYCHIC PROCESSES - brooding on partner’s faults/person begins to exp. dissatisfaction
3⃣ DYADIC PHASE - actively confront partner
4⃣ SOCIAL PHASE - both reveal difficulties w/ network friends/family
5⃣ GRAVE DRESSING PHASE - both try to exp. their role in breakdown; strive to pres. self as in the right
6⃣ RESURRECTION PROCESSES - partners reassess understanding/expectations of relationships. Attempt to rest abolish own indiv. sense of identity/self-esteem
10
Q
Evaluation of model of relationship breakdown
A
-
Tashiro/Fraizer - surveyed undergrads who recently broken up w/ partner
- typically reported exp. emotional distress and personal growth (support for phases from real-life break ups)
- Heterosexual bias - model developed from exp. of white, mid-class, heterosexual ppts (not rep. of others)
-
Gender differences - Argyle/Henderson: women identified lack of emotional support as reason for breakup, men cited absence of fun
- women have more desire to stay friends after breakup, men want to ‘cut their losses’/move on (Akert)
-
IDA Real world application - model stresses communication in b/d, led to development of training programmes in enhancing relationship skills
- e.g CCET aim to sensitise couples to equity issues/improve communication
- Cina: ‘trained’ couples reported h. marital quality compared to control group
-
Ethical issues - research in sensitive area raises issue of vulnerability e.g ppts feel distressed when revisiting issues led to b/d
- Privacy/confidentiality
11
Q
Breakdown:
Evolutionary explanation to relationship breakdown (Fisher)
A
- Ppl far from being pair-bonded for life, actually predisposed towards form of serial monogamy
- Infidelity (major cause of b/d) hard-wired into men/women
- Duration of human-pair bonding closely connected w/ vulnerable cond. of human infants at birth
- Best strategy for men/women may be to seek new mating partner after any infants produced by them have weaned
- Peak in relationship dissolution called the 4 Year Itch
12
Q
Evaluation of the evolutionary explanation to relationship breakdown
A
-
Fisher - looked at 60 cultures, west/non-West
- developing/non-dev countries, found pattern of 4 Year rise in divorce and relationship b/d across all cultures
-
Ultimate/proximate causes - evolutionary psychologists argue much human behaviour is product of psychological adaptations evolved to solve probs faced by our ancestors
- Focus too much on ultimate causes, ignores prox. e.g age of partners entering relationship/cultural factors like acceptability of marital b/d
- Limitations of evolutionary exp - reductionist/determinist: ignores personal/social cond. that influence relationship b/d
13
Q
Effects of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour:
Natural selection/background
A
- Natural selection key driving force behind evolution, but influenced by sexual selection
- Selection occurs b/w members of same sex (intra-sexual) or b/w (inter-sexual) selection
14
Q
Effect of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour:
Sexual dimorphism
A
- Females pref. taller partner than themselves
- Human males 15% bigger than females of all populations
- Suggests that males compete w/ each other (intra-sexual) and females select (inter-sexual)
15
Q
Evaluation of Sexual dimorphism
A
- Difference in size of males and females is 15%
- Fact that sexual dimorphism appears to be universal in humans strongly suggests that our bodies are subject to the effects of sexual selection
- Unclear whether this is result of female pref. for larger males (inter-sexual) or that bigger males are effective in acquiring mates (intra-sexual)
