Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Daniella IB HL psych > relationships > Flashcards

relationships Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

buss

aim

A
  • investigate the role of evolution in attraction and mate selection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

buss

results

A
  • countries more pathogen stress, more emphasis on good looks
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

wedekind

aim

A
  • investigate the role of MHC genes in attraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

wedekind

results

A
  • women who were fertile preferred MHC dissimilar scent shirt
  • women birth control prefered the scent MHC similar men
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

markey

aim

A
  • investigate how similarity affects attraction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

markey

results

A
  • high correlation between description of ideal partner and self description
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

markey

conclusion

A
  • perceived similarity important factor influencing mate selection and attractive
  • not much evidence “opposites attract”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

buss 1989

aim

A
  • investigate sex and cultural differences in what people look for in a mate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

buss 1989

procedure

A
  • 10,000 participant survey 37 countries

- rate importance of different qualities in a mate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

buss 1989

conclusion

A
  • universal sex and cultural differences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

collins and miller

aim

A
  • investigate the relationship between self disclosure, liking and intimacy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

gottman

aim

A
  • determine how communication affects marital satisfaction and likelihood of divorce
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

gottman

conclusion

A
  • healthy communication patterns are essential to make relationships last
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

Daniella IB HL psych (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions