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)
16
Q
Effect of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour:
Mate preferences
A
- Women limitd in no. offspring
- enhance reproductive success by choosing a h. status male w/ sufficient resources to invest in offspring
- thus show pref. for wealthy/powerful males
- enhance reproductive success by choosing a h. status male w/ sufficient resources to invest in offspring
- Males use physical characteristics as guide to age/reproductive ability
- men pref. healthy, young women
17
Q
Evaluation of Mate preferences
A
-
Dunbar - found consistent pattern in newspaper/mag ads
- Women sought resources/offer attractiveness
- men sought attractiveness/offer resources
-
Buss - emphasis on looks by men, earning-capacity by women held true in 37 cultures; universal pref?
- Strengths - 10,000 ppts, allowing testing of no. diff. hypotheses; 37 cultures from 33 countries, 5 Islands on all 6 continents.
-
Weaknesses - sample largely urban/westernised
- Americans comprised 20%, Euro over-represented and mostly well-educated!
- Not generalisable to all populations, criticised for misrep rural/less educated
- Limitations of secondary/questionnaire data - may not reveal complexity of human behaviour
- Americans comprised 20%, Euro over-represented and mostly well-educated!
18
Q
Effect of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour:
Mating strategies
A
- Males use polygyny to inc. no. offspring produced over reproductive lifetime.
- Inc. reproductive fitness by comp. w/ other males for mates
- Females comp. for resources, not mates
- thus expected to favour polygyny, as sharing resource-rich males pref. to exclusive access to male w/ no resources
19
Q
Evaluation of Mating systems
A
- Kill/Kaplan - in hunter gatherer societies, best hunters are likely to have the most wives, affairs and children
20
Q
Effect of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour:
Intelligence/creativity
A
- Human intelligence/creativity is a product of sexual selection
- Women developed pref. for intelligent males, as an adv. for self/offspring.
- Males use art, literature/humour to signal intelligence - ‘display hypothesis’
- Miller argues language is an example of this
- humans use far more words than necessary for basic communication purposes
21
Q
General evaluation of effects of sexual selection on human reproductive behaviour
A
- Limitations of evolutionary exp - reductionist/determinist: ignores personal/social cond. that influence relationship b/d
22
Q
Sex differences in parental investment:
Background
A
- Males and females ‘investors’ in future offspring, but investment takes diff forms
- Females invest physically in offspring, males control resources
- Males can opt out of parental investment in a way that females can’t; investment by females much greater than that made by males
23
Q
Sex differences in parental investment:
Paternal investment
A
-
Males invest less
- women only prod. limited no. of offspring
- males can potentially father unlimted no. of offspring
- males can walk away after conception
- When males invest paternally, threatened by concept of cuckoldry.
- As males invest considerably in kids, have greater concentration of partners cheating, thus take extra care to ensure not investing in offspring not theirs
- Due to risk of cuckoldry, men are more jealous of sexual act, women concerned w/ shift of emotional focus towards another woman (risk loss of resources?)
24
Q
Sex differences in parental investment
Maternal investment
A
- Human infants more vulnerable at birth than other mammals
- Mums not only carry baby during long gestation period, but also care after birth, resulting in prolonged care
- Cost of child are esp. h. for females
25
Q
Evaluation of sex differences in parental investment
A
- Buss & sex differences in jealousy - found male students are distressed when asked to imagine sexual infidelity of partner, females more about emotional infidelity
- BUT Harris - jealous differences are adaptive responses? Men respond w/ greater arousal to any sexual imagery, regardless of context; differences likely a product of social learning than evolutionary.
- Anderson & willing fathers - implication that males unwilling to invest offspring that aren’t theirs; found men didn’t discriminate financially b/w child of current partner from prev. relationship and their own! May invest in stepchild to convince mother he’s a ‘good provider’
-
Limitations of evolutionary theory - reductionist/determinist! Ignores personal/social cond. influence investment. Men parental behaviour depends on various personal/social cond. e.g quality of relationship w/ mum & his personality.
- Belsky - childhood exp. e.g parental divorce tends to correlate w/ degree to which men invest in upbringing/care of kids.
26
Q
Influence of childhood/adolescent experiences on relationships:
Effects of childhood abuse on later relationships
A
- Physical abuse in childhood has negative effets on adult psychological functioning
-
Childhood sexual abuse linked w/ psychological impairment in adult life
- victims of abuse exp. difficulties forming healthy relationships in adulthood
- Individuals who’ve exp. abuse develop damaged ability to trust/sense of isolation from others (Alpert)
- Distancing/self-isolation can inhibit development of romantic attachments in adulthood
-
Van der Kolk/Fisler - individuals who suffered childhood abuse had difficulty forming healthy attachments
- these disorganised patterns of attachment lead to difficulty in regulating emotions, key aspect in forming/maintaining healthy relationships
27
Q
**Evaluation of effect of childhood abuse on later relationships **
A
-
Berenson/Anderson - adult women who’d been abused in childhood later displayed negative reactions towards another person (e.g. expectation of rejection) but only w/ people who reminded them of their abusive parent
- no such pattern occurred w/ ppl who bore no resemblance to the abusive parent
- concluded that process of transference could lead individuals abused to find inappropriate behav. patterns learnt from relationship w/ an abusive parent in subsequent interpersonal relationships
- no such pattern occurred w/ ppl who bore no resemblance to the abusive parent
28
Q
Influence of childhood/adolescent experiences on relationships:
Parent-child relationships
A
-
Hazan/Shaver suggest that love represents attachment process, w/ infant learning of love from PCG:
- Later relationships are seen as continuation of this early relationship
- Mum’s behaviour creates internal working model whereby infant expects same exp. in later relationships (Bowlby)
- e.g. securely-attached adults later trusted others/believed in enduring love
- insecurely-attached adults had trouble finding true love
29
Q
Evaluation of influence of childhood parent-child relationships
A
- McCarthy - looked at women classified in infancy for attachment type & quality of relationship; results support
-
Hazan/Shaver ‘love quiz’, secure infants most successful in adult relationship, whereas insecure has difficulties
- Weakness - relies on retrospective attachment classification - recollections not reliable (missing info?)
-
In what way are childhood/adult relationships linked?
- probs separating cause from effect
- though suggests early exp. linked to success of relationships, doesn’t exp/ nature of link
- maybe infants insecurely attached are pre-disposed to relationship difficulties, but can’t assume this stems from difficulties in relationship w/ PCG
- may be other factors e.g. innate temperament underlie relationship
-
IDA Determinist - research appears to indicted that v. early exp. have fixed effect on later adult relationships, thus insecurely attached will inevitably exp emotionally unsatisfactory relationships as adults
- But research shows plenty of cases where ppts exp. happy adult relationships, despite not having been securely attached as infants
- Ignores other influences e.g temperament
30
Q
Influence of culture on romantic relationships:
Mead’s studies
A
- Mead’s observ. of gender diff in behaviour/relationships
- Found imp. diff in gender-related behaviour
-
Tchambuli tribe gendered behaviour opposite of West:
- women ‘possessive, practical, robust’, men engaged in ‘flirtatious, coquettish behaviour’
- Norms relating to intimate relationships much looser and permissive than those in West e.g monogamy v. alien to Samoans
31
Q
Evaluation of influence of culture:
Mead’s studies
A
- Shows that ‘norms’ of relationships nothing more than social construction; not inevitable that males take leading role in relationships, and women a more passive one
-
Freeman - casts doubt on the validity findings; suggests virginity h. valued in Samoan society; girls go to desperate lengths to fake virginity on wedding night
- Mead naive in accepting at face value, what girls said
- Mead may have under-estimated difficulties encountered in doing ethnographic research
32
Q
Influence of culture on romantic relationships - Attitudes towards romantic love & marriage
A
- Romantic love is Western ideal whereas most outside don’t consider love sufficient reason for marriage, but regard other factors e.g financial stability/compatibility
- West & non-west commonly thought to differ in terms of degree to which they’re considered voluntary/non-voluntary
- Arranged marriages common in non-west, considered to differ in degree of choice, as typically seen in West
33
Q
Evaluation of influence of culture:
Attitudes towards love & marriage
A
- Collins/Coltrane - found ppl in West would marry for reasons other than love; 50% of Americans married for other reasons
- Epstein - spouses in arranged marriages frequently report they have fallen in love, suggests that h. degree of choice not a pre-condition for romantic love
34
Q
Influence of culture on romantic relationships:
Attitudes towards relationship permanence
A
- West/non-west presumed to differ in continuity permanence
- Throughout lives, West will have many temporary/transitory relationships, but will not maintain most of these, as we live in a h. geographically/socially mobile world
- Ppl in non-west show low rates of mobility, thus able to maintain relationships over ext. period of time
35
Q
Evaluation of influence of culture:
Attitudes to relationship permanence
A
- Shift to non-permanent relationships in West fairly recent phenomenon; divorce uncommon 50+ years ago.
- West views weren’t always this way! Non-Westen world now characterised by h. levels of mobility (migrate/move to city).
- Makes more likely that West and non-West attitudes converging.
- Nature of relationships more similar than commonly believed
36
Q
Influence of culture of romantic relationships:
Individualist/collectivist distinction
A
- Said to be reason for differences in West and non-west; distinction affects many aspects of social behaviour
- Collectivist - more structures and governed by rules, expectations, norms.
- Individualist - more freedom of movement in relationships
37
Q
Evaluation of influence of culture:
Individualist/collectivist distinction
A
- Adar - non-West cultures becoming more urbanised; Israeli Kibbutzim families gradually changed extended communal unit (collectivist) to being one couple and kids (more individualist).
- Matsumoto - that collectivism in decline in many parts of world e.g Japan
