Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
-Evolutionary background
-Darwin’s theory is based on survival and reproduction and uses natural selection, adaptation and reproductive success to explain partner preferences.
-Natural selection -> The differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype
-Adaptation -> The dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness
-Reproductive success -> An individual’s production of offspring per breeding event or lifetime
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
-Sexual selection
-It refers to the competition for mates between members of the same sex, which has a significant impact on the evolution of certain physical and psychological traits, such as greater height, certain facial and bodily features
-Sexual selection explains why some characteristics might appear disadvantageous in terms of survival, but actually give an advantage in human reproductive behaviour because the characteristics are attractive to potential mates
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
-Inter and Intra sexual selection
Inter-sexual selection:
-This is the preferred strategy of the female - quality over quantity
-Ova are rarer than sperm and lots more energy is required before and after birth, so the female wisely chooses a partner. This will enhance the female’s reproductive success and any bearing child will have a greater chance of survival
Intra-sexual selection:
-This is the preferred strategy of the male - quantity over quality
-It refers to the competition between males to be able to mate with a female. The winner of the competition reproduces and gets to pass on his characteristics to his offspring
-There is sexual dimorphism in the intra-selection, where sex differences are being driven about what females want (growing differences)
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
-Human reproductive behaviour (socio-biological exp)
-The socio-biological explanation is the idea that men and women employ different strategies for attracting a mate
-For men, they are attracted to younger women as its shows they have high fertility and health. Usually, a 0.70 hip to waist ratio
-Male strategies: courtship rituals, size, sperm competition, mate guarding, sneak copulation
-For women, they are attracted to men with bigger resources as they are able to provide for the family
-Female strategies: handicap hypothesis, sexy sons hypothesis, courtship
-CADs -> Low investment males seeking to maximise mating opportunities
-DADs -> High investment males committed to 1 partner
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-Self-disclosure
-Self disclosure is the revealing of personal information about oneself to another individual we like. It is theorised that it acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy
-Self-disclosure creates a sense of trust when the information disclosed is kept secret. It’s a crucial element in the early stages of romantic relationships
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-Theories of self-disclosure
Social penetration theory:
-It states that as a relationship develops, communication moves from relatively shallow, non-intimate levels to deeper, more personal ones
-The more time we spend with others, the more likely we are to self-disclose more intimate thoughts in our life (individual interpretations)
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure:
-Appropriateness -> Disclosing personal info at inappropriate times would not be helpful
-Attributions -> If we believe an individual is likely to disclose information to everyone, it will make us feel not special
Reciprocity of self-disclosure:
-Gender differences -> Women are regarded as more interested in personal info so are likely to be attracted to men who make personal disclosures
-Content of the disclosure -> There is a balance to disclosure and too much will make someone feel uncomfortable
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-Physical attractiveness and the Matching hypothesis
-The Halo effect -> People who are deemed to be attractive tend to benefit from favourable perceptions from society. It could be argued that attractive people make their personalities more attractive
-The Matching hypothesis -> This is the theory that people will seek partners of physical attractiveness to themselves. This means we need to have a realistic judgement of our attractiveness in the first place. Attempting to ‘punch above your weight’ carries the increased risk of rejection that could damage self-esteem. If one partner feels they are more attractive than the other, then there is a fear they will leave for a more attractive partner
Theories of romantic relationships
-Equity theory
-The equity theory is an extension of the social exchange theory
-This theory suggests what matters most for a relationship to work is that both partners feel that the relationship is fair and not focused on equality
-If over-benefitting or under-benefitting occurs, then there is dissatisfaction in the relationship
-Over-benefitting results in guilt and awareness of your position
-Under-benefitting results in hostility, angry and the person who is likely to end the relationship
-It is improbable that a relationship will remain in equity for its entire course and there will be periods of inequity
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
-Filter theory
-Kerkhoff and Davies (1962) theorised that our choices of mates are limited by several factors. These factors ‘filter’ down potential mates available to us
-1st level -> Social Demography: Individuals with similar demography to us. Where we live or work. Any religious groups or common hobbies
-2nd level -> Similarity in attitudes: More likely to meet people with similar attitudes and beliefs. E.g., you may meet someone at a protest march
-3rd level -> Complementarity: Focus here is on how much the individual meets their partner’s needs, especially emotional ones. Very important for moving past the initial stages of a relationships into deeper commitment
Theories of romantic relationships
-Rusbult’s investment model of commitment
Satisfaction level, Quality of alternatives, Investment size -> Commitment level -> Probability of persistence
-Rusbult suggests that commitment depends on 3 factors;
1.Satisfaction -> what extent does your partner meet your needs
2.Comparison with alternatives -> does the relationship stand against other possible alternatives
3.Investment size -> The more that is invested, the stronger the commitment to keep the relationship going
-Rusbult also suggested maintenance behaviours;
1.Accommodation -> Acting in way that promotes relationships
2.Willingness to sacrifice -> Putting partners interest in first
3. Positive illusions -> Being unrealistically positive about partners qualities
4. Ridiculing alternatives -> Minimising the advantages of potential alternatives
-The 2 variables which influence commitment in a relationship;
1. Equity -> The degree of fairness within a relationship
2. Social support -> What other people’s views are on your relationship
-Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation/investments:
Intrinsic -> Things we put in a relationship such as time, effort, money and emotional care for your partner
-Extrinsic -> Things that come from a relationship, such as children, shared memories and interweaved friendships
Theories of romantic relationships
-Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
-Duck proposed 3 types of major relationship breakdown:
1. Pre-existing doom -> The relationship was doomed to end from start
2. Mechanical failure -> Partners who are compatible slowly grow apart over a long period of time
3. Sudden death -> This is where the relationship suddenly ends
-Duck proposed 5 minor reasons which contribute to relationship breakdown:
1. Intrapsychic -> 1 partner privately begins to feel dissatisfaction with the relationship
2. Dyadic -> Dissatisfaction is discussed with the partner and if nothing changes then the next stage is activated
3. Social -> The breakdown is made public to friends and family and negotiations may occur
4. Grave dressing -> Post relationship perception is created. Ex partners now rebuild their life towards new relationships
-5 factors which contribute to a relationship breakdown (issues in intrapsychic stage)
1. Predisposing personal factors -> Bad habitats or personal hygiene
2. Precipitating factors -> Love rivals, long work hours
3. Lack of skills -> If your partner is sexually inexperienced or no aspirations
4. Lack of motivation -> A partner does not put the same effort into the relationship as the other
5. Lack of maintenance -> Spending lots of time apart, not setting time aside for relationship
Virtual relationships in social media
-Self disclosure in virtual relationships
-Self disclosure is thought to increase intimacy in virtual relationships much quicker than in physical relationships
-Because there is still an element of anonymity, people are more likely to be truthful about themselves
-Deindividuation occurs: The loss of self-awareness in groups. In psychological context it could be when behaviour changes when you are being a shield
Virtual relationships in social media
-Self disclosure (reduced cues theory)
-Sproull and Kiesler (1986) suggested that online relationships might be less open and honest than face-to-face ones, because in real life we are relying on a lot of subtle cues, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, and these cues are absent in virtual relationships
-According to this theory, reduction in communication cues leads to deindividuation because it diminishes people’s feelings of individual identity and brings on behaviours that people usually restrain themselves from displaying, such as aggression
-This may make online communication more aggressive, and the consequence of this is less self-disclosure from other people
Virtual relationships in social media
-Self disclosure (the hyperpersonal model)
-Walther (1996) proposed the hyperpersonal model of virtual relationships, suggesting that, as self disclosure in online relationships happens earlier than in face-to-face ones, relationships quickly become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful
-Projecting a positive image will then make an online partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing the intensity of the relationship
Virtual relationships in social media
-Effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships
-Examples of ‘gates’ : yawning, twitching, sneezing, smell of the other person, manners
-When a person goes on a date, these gates might ‘block off’ unattractive people from progressing further with their date
-In virtual relationships, these gates do not initially exist to the same extent as physical relationships
-In virtual relationships, it is thought that the relationship has developed enough so that when they meet, the gates do not matter because the bond has strengthened to the point where the relationship will continue
