relationships Flashcards
1
Q
what is attractive
A
- symmetrical face
- unblemished skin
- unblemished teeth
- full hair
- mathematically average features
- men, prominent cheekbone, low deep voice
- women, youth, waist him ratio hourglass
2
Q
buss
aim
A
- investigate the role of evolution in attraction and mate selection
3
Q
buss
procedure
A
- 29 countries rated how important “good looks” are in choosing a partner
- ratings compared with degree of pathogen stress (number of parasites) to see if any correlation
4
Q
buss
results
A
- countries more pathogen stress, more emphasis on good looks
5
Q
buss
conclusion
A
- high pathogen stress, healthy partner with strong immune system is more important for successful reproduction
- physical attractiveness is a sign of good health
6
Q
buss
evaluation
A
- supports evolutionary theory of attraction, attraction driven by desire to reproduce successfully
- correlational so not proven casual relationship between pathogen stress and importance of good looks
- other differences could explain the correlation
7
Q
wedekind
aim
A
- investigate the role of MHC genes in attraction
8
Q
wedekind
procedure
A
- men wore shirt 2 nights, no cologne, natural body odour
- female participants rated attractiveness of the smell of the shirts without seeing the men
- of the seven shirts 3 were MHC similar, 3 MHC dissimilar, 1 not worn
9
Q
wedekind
results
A
- women who were fertile preferred MHC dissimilar scent shirt
- women birth control prefered the scent MHC similar men
10
Q
wedekind
conclusion
A
- fertile women attracted to MHC dissimilar, ensures their children strongest possible immune system
- birth control prefer MHC dissimilar, beneficial to stay close to biological family members
11
Q
wedekind
evaluation
A
- supports evolutionary theory of attraction, fertile women attracted to men provide the best chance for children
- existence of pheromones , unsure
- low ecological validity, nobody chooses a mate by tshirt
- unclear how much of a role MHC genes play in attraction in real life, other factors
12
Q
evolutionary theory of attraction evaluation
A
- can explain why certain physical features are attractive in every culture and time period
- evidence physical features are associated with good health and reproductive fitness
- buss and wedekind studies support
- considerable cultural variation on what is attractive, other factors influence attraction
- implies attraction is purely biological
13
Q
why similarity leads to attraction
A
- consensual validation
share the same values so you feel validated - cognitive evaluation
proud of our beliefs and will evaluate others higher if they have the same ones - opportunity for self expansion
gaining new knowledge and experiences whilst sharing the same interests and goals allows self expansion
14
Q
why similarity leads to attraction
A
- consensual validation
share the same values so you feel validated - cognitive evaluation
proud of our beliefs and will evaluate others higher if they have the same ones - opportunity for self expansion
gaining new knowledge and experiences whilst sharing the same interests and goals allows self expansion,change together
15
Q
markey
aim
A
- investigate how similarity affects attraction
16
Q
markey
procedure
A
- 169 single american university students
- survey on characteristics , values and attitudes of ideal partner
- survey on their own personality and values
17
Q
markey
results
A
- high correlation between description of ideal partner and self description
18
Q
markey
conclusion
A
- perceived similarity important factor influencing mate selection and attractive
- not much evidence “opposites attract”
19
Q
markey
evaluation
A
- large sample size
- all american university students, not generalizable to age/cultural groups
- based on self report instead of actual dating behaviour
- correlational study, casual relationship can’t be formed
- attraction to someone may perceive them as more similar
20
Q
culture and mate selection
A
- arranged marriages
- meeting people online
- delaying marriage until later in western countries
- importance given to romantic love, marriage for union or love
21
Q
buss 1989
aim
A
- investigate sex and cultural differences in what people look for in a mate
22
Q
buss 1989
procedure
A
- 10,000 participant survey 37 countries
- rate importance of different qualities in a mate
23
Q
buss 1989
results
A
- women ranked good financial prospects higher than men
- men ranked good looks higher than women
- women prefer slightly older men, men prefer younger
- love ranked most important in the USA less important in traditional cultures
- some cultures value chastity in women, others unimportant
24
Q
buss 1989
conclusion
A
- universal sex and cultural differences
25
Q
buss 1989
evaluation
A
- supports evolutionary theory of mate selection
- indicates culture plays a role in mate selection
- large sample and variety of cultures, reliable and able to cross cultural compare
- self report results, say what they want instead of what they do
26
Q
social penetration theory
A
- close relationships are formed over time, process of self disclosure
- as relationships develop, shallow communication to deeper communication
- one person discloses deep information so will the other causing closer relationship (disclosure reciprocity)
27
Q
collins and miller
aim
A
- investigate the relationship between self disclosure, liking and intimacy
28
Q
collins and miller
procedure
A
- meta analysis of 94 studies on the topic of self disclosure, variety of research designs
- meta analysis = combination of different studies to reach an overall conclusion
29
Q
collins and miller
results
A
- people who shared more intimate facts, generally more liked by others
- greater self disclosure leads to being liked
- people disclose to people they like already, more likely to be accepted and supported
- like others more after because they feel acknowledged and listened to
30
Q
collins and miller
conclusion
A
- self disclosure can lead to a positive feedback loop increasing intimacy of a relationship
- self disclosure decreases a relationship, leads to a negative feedback loop
31
Q
collins and miller
evaluation
A
- supports self disclosure theory, important factor in increasing liking and closeness in a relationship
- 94 studies, reliable
- limitation, doesn’t explain why some relationships decrease disclosure and liking and others opposite
32
Q
four horsemen of the apocalypse
gottman
A
- criticism
verballing attacking personality or characteristics - defensiveness
reversing blame criticising back - stonewalling
withdrawing from the relationship to convey disapproval and distance - contempt
attacking partners sense of self to psychologically abuse them
33
Q
gottman
aim
A
- determine how communication affects marital satisfaction and likelihood of divorce
34
Q
gottman
procedure
A
- couples in lab, recall a recent disagreement while being filmed
- video analyzed by coding verbal statements and facial emotion
- followed up to see who stayed together and who divorced
35
Q
gottman
findings
A
- couples with high criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling significantly more likely to divorce
- predict 91% accuracy which couples would stay together and divorce after viewing one argument
36
Q
gottman
conclusion
A
- healthy communication patterns are essential to make relationships last
37
Q
gottman
evaluation
A
- high applicability as couples can improve their relationship and apply results
- researcher bias, code consistent with hypothesis as verbal statements and facial affect is not fully objective
- self selected sample of mainly educated middle class americans , limited generalizability
- correlational study, communication may not cause relationship dissatisfaction
- possible couples already dissatisfied argue with more hostility
38
Q
social exchange theory
A
- relationship will only last if both people “get something” out of it
- weighing up rewards and costs
39
Q
3 components of social exchange theory
outcome
A
- rewards of relationship minus the cost
- rewards, intimacy, emotional, financial support, social standing, fun
- costs, arguments, jealousy, manipulation, annoying
- aim most rewards, least costs
40
Q
3 components of social exchange theory
comparison level
A
- rewards and costs measured against a comparison level
- comparison level is what person expects from a relationship based on past experiences or social expectations
41
Q
3 components of social exchange theory
comparison level for alternatives
A
- other options in the dating pool
- surrounded by potential matches, comparison level for alternatives will be high
- few options may stay because alternatives are worse
42
Q
3 components of social exchange theory
A
- determine whether a relationship will be happy, stable or opposite
43
Q
prediction of social exchange theory
A
- very attractive people. less stable and shorter relationships due to many alternatives
44
Q
ma-kellams and wang
aim
A
- investigate how attractiveness can impact relationship longevity
45
Q
ma-kellams and wang
procedure
A
- 130 participants, half in relationship
- shown a picture an attractive person of the opposite sex, ranked 1-7 how attracted to them
- researchers secretly rated attractiveness of participants
46
Q
ma-kellams and wang
results
A
- participants below average looks, low attractiveness ratings to the person in the photo, not interested in relationship alternatives
- above average looks, significantly higher attractiveness ratings, more open to pursuing relationships
47
Q
ma-kellams and wang
conclusion
A
- very good looking, more interested in pursuing attractive members of the opposite sex, even if already in a relationship
48
Q
ma-kellams and wang
evaluation
A
- supports the predictions of social exchange theory
- limitation, only attractiveness ratings were measured, not if participant would actually flirt or be unfaithful
- all american, may not apply to other cultures
49
Q
evaluating social exchanhge theory
A
- strength, explain why people stay in bad relationships
- limitation, assuming complete motivation in self interest, implies true commitment doesn’t exist, always looking for alternatives
- impossible to quantify relationship rewards, costs and quality of alternatives, hard to use theory to predict couples staying together and breaking up
50
Q
prosocial behaviour
A
- action that benefits other people or society as a whole
51
Q
prosocial behaviour???
A
- evolutionary perspective perplexing
- risking your life to save a stranger doesn’t help you in any way
- maladaptive
52
Q
2 theories to explain prosocial behaviour
biological
A
- kin selection theory
- reciprocal alturism
53
Q
kin selection theory
A
- closer family more prosocial
- evolutionary biology selfish genes
- genes copied from successful reproduction or prosocial behavior towards family members
- increases chance close relatives, may same genes as you will procreate
- help people in whom we share genes
- siblings, parents > cousins, more genes shared
54
Q
madsen
aim
A
- investigare how family relationships influence prosocial behaviour
55
Q
madsen
procedure
A
- painful squating backs against a wall for as long as they were willing
- longer able to hold, more money
- one condition, told keep the money
- next condition, told brother, uncle, cousin, charity keep money
56
Q
madsen
results
A
- participants held the position for the longest when they keep the money
- family member, longest going to a brother (50% genes) least cousin (12.5%) genes
- shortest, going to charity
57
Q
madsen
conclusion
A
- likely to endure hardships to help close family members than for strangers
58
Q
madsen
evaluation
A
- supports kin selection theory, greater genetics= more prosocial behaviour
- lab experiment, casual relationship between degree of genetic similarity and prosocial behaviour
59
Q
theory of reciprocal altruism
A
- prosocial behaviour is a social exchange
- help our friends expect to be helped in return
- increases our chances of survival and reproducing
60
Q
axelrod and hamilton
aim
A
- test the theory of reciprocal altruism
61
Q
axelrod and hamilton
procedure
A
- two participants play the prisoner’s dilemma several times in a row
- two options “confess” or “stay silent”
- the best outcome for both is to stay
- don’t think partner stayed silent better to confess
62
Q
axelrod and hamilton
results
A
- players adjust to the other players last decision
- tend to stay silent first round to see if other player will do the same
- if other player also stays silent they will repeat
63
Q
axelrod and hamilton
conclusion
A
- when two players expect to play several rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma, it is possible to cooperate by staying silence
64
Q
axelrod and hamilton
evaluation
A
- supports the theory of reciprocal altruism
- lab and artificial game, unsure if can be applied to real life behaviour
65
Q
evaluating evolutionary theories of prosocial behaviour
A
- kin selection theory and reciprocal altruism explain high degree of prosocial behaviour between family and friends
- don’t explain why people help strangers
- assume biology is the ultimate cause of prosocial behaviour
- cultural expectations could play a role, expectations on how to behave
- genes are the “cause” of altruism, relationship between genes and the environment is complex, no specific gene.
66
Q
empathy altruism model
batson
A
- importance of empathy in prosocial behaviour
- respond to someone needing help dependent on our degree of empathy
- help to relive our own distress, egoistic helping
67
Q
batson
aim
A
- investigate whether empathy influences altruism
68
Q
batson
procedure
A
- american university students, watched a video interview of another student
- student describes struggles in uni after breaking both legs in a car accident
- students asked to volunteer their time to meet with carol and help
- two variables manipulated, level of empathy, told focus on how carol is feeling while watching video, other half don’t be concerned with her feelings
- second variable, cost of not helping, half told in the same class see her everyday, feel guilty, other half told carol at home, never see her again
69
Q
batson
results
A
- most high empathy group offered to share notes regardless of seeing her in class
- low empathy group tended to help only if in class to avoid guilt, egoistic helping
70
Q
batson
conclusion
A
- feel empathy, help even when there is no reward
- no empathy, consider rewards and costs
71
Q
batson
evaluation
A
- supports the empathy altruism model
- empathy is the key difference between true altruism and egoistic helping
- high ecological validity
- only american university students, may not be generalizable to other cultures/age groups
72
Q
sympatico hypothesis
levine
A
- influenced by the environment
- cities busy competitive, no time to help a stranger
- small town, relaxed unhurried, emphasis on social obligations
73
Q
levine
aim
A
- compare prosocial behaviour towards strangers in cities around the world
74
Q
levine
procedure
A
- 36 U.S cities and 23 global cities
- measure how many strangers would be willing to perform altruistic tasks
75
Q
levine
results
A
- significant differences in helping behaviour between cities
- cities with lower population density and economic productivity had more prosocial behaviour
76
Q
levine
conclusion
A
- supports the sympatico hypothesis, each city has a character that influences helping
- some cultures favor social obligation over individual achievement
77
Q
levine
evaluation
A
- high ecological validity, real life examples
- field experiment, extraneous variables, districts of cities
- kindness = prosocial behaviour? may not stop and help someone cross the road but could donate lots of money to charity
78
Q
evaluating cognitive and sociocultural explanations for prosocial
A
- explains prosocial behaviour towards strangers, bio only family and friends
- empathy altruism model, hard to predict if a person will feel empathy
- sympatico hypothesis why prosocial behaviour more common in some cities or cultures than others
79
Q
bystanderism
A
- an individual less likely to help in an emergency situation because there are lots of other bystanders present
80
Q
theory of the bystander effect
latane and darley
A
- why more witnesses = less prosocial behaviour?
- diffusion of responsibility, soley on your shoulders if it is only you but shared fault if lots of people, nobody feels personal duty
- informational social influence, unclear whether a true emergency, looking at how others are responding, ignore assume fine
81
Q
latane and darley
aim
A
- investigate why people fail to intervene in an emergency situation with many bystanders
82
Q
latane and darley
procedure
A
- participants (university students) were told interviewed by intercom in separate rooms for anonymity
- midway through, participants hear another “participant” cry for help making choking sounds, actually recording
83
Q
latane and darley
results
A
- participants told only one other student 85% rushed out to help
- 65% with 2 other students
- 31% with 4 others
84
Q
latane and darley
conclusion
A
- many bystanders create diffusion of responsibility
- someone else will probably help
85
Q
latane and darley
evaluation
A
- carefully controlled
- casual relationship between IV number of bystanders and DV willingness to help
- high ecological validity
- ethical issues, stressful situation, deceived by recording
- only american university students, may not be generalized to other age groups and cultures
86
Q
arousal cost reward model
A
- we see someone distress = arousal, uncomfortable emotions
- then calculate the costs and rewards of helping
- stronger arousal, increased chance of helping
87
Q
pillavin
aim
A
- determine if rewards and costs influence helping behaviour
88
Q
pillavin
procedure
A
- a “victim” collapses on the floor of a subway car
- IV = appearance of victim
- half the time, alcoholic, carrying bottle
- other half disabled with a cane
- frequency and speed at which the “victim” was helped recorded
89
Q
pillavin
results
A
- disabled helped 100% of the time, 5 seconds average
- alcoholic 80% of the time, 109 seconds averafe
90
Q
pillavin
conclusion
A
- support arousal cost reward model
- costs of helping an alcoholic are higher, unstable, possibly violent
- costs of not helping disabled are higher, feeling guilty
91
Q
pillavin
evaluation
A
- field experiment, high ecological validity
- ethical issues, deception and no consent
- alternative explanation, social norms explain why disabled person helped more, norm to help the disabled
