Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanation- Researcher
Buss- conducted a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females reported valuing resource-based characteristics when choosing a male and males valued signs of female reproduction such as attractiveness and modernity
Evolutionary explanation- AO1
Anisogamy- differences between male and female sex cells
Male sex cells- large quantities, replenish quickly, continuously from puberty to old age
Intra-Sexual selection- Male strategy- where members of the same sex compete with one other for members of the opposite sex. Those who ‘win’ are able to mate and pass on their genes to the next generation.
Female sex cells -takes a lot of energy to produce, created in limited numbers , during specific time period, last for certain number of years
Inter-Sexual selection- Female choice- based on the idea that females’ place a greater investment of time, energy and resources in raising a child, so they need to be more careful when choosing a partner.
Evolutionary explanation- AO3
Research to support- Buss- research
Methodological weakness- Buss survey- social desirability bias– 77% were from western cultures- Buss might have been measuring the effects of culture rather than an evolutionary determined behaviour
Alpha Bias- May be overstated- is it plausible to argue that males and females look for similar characteristics
Evolutionary reductionism-argues that strategies are due to genetic inheritance and need to reproduce -evolutionary explanations fail to account for homosexual relationships
Self-disclosure-Definition
the information we choose to reveal to a romantic partner
Self-Disclosure - researchers
Altman and Taylor-
Resis and shaver
Self-Disclosure - AO1
Altman and Taylor- social penetration
Resis and shaver- two elements to the social penetration theory- breath and depth
Self-Disclosure - AO3
☹️Methodological issue
the use of correlational studies, such as Sprecher and Hendrick (2004), is that causal conclusions cannot be made. For example, simply because there is a correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure does not necessarily mean that the former causes the latter
☹️reductionist
By reducing relationship satisfaction to a single factor, Social Penetration Theory ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction, such as physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity.
☹️culturally
Social Penetration Theory was developed based on research in a Western, individualist culture, so it may not apply to collectivist cultures. For example, Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than romantic partners in China; however, the level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures.
Filter Theory - Researcher
Kerckhoff and Davis
Filter Theory- AO1
Initially exposed to ‘ field of availables’
Then ‘field of desirables’ which is narrowed down by 3 filters:
- social demographic- factors that make potential partners attractive
- similarities in attitudes - Particularly important for ST relationships
- complementary - feeling whole
Filter Theory- AO3
Temporal validity-Filter theory may have been considered a valid explanation for relationship formation, but only before the increased use of the Internet and online dating
Cultural bias -Most research supporting the Filter Theory uses participants from individualist, Western cultures. Individualist cultures value free choice in relationships, and describe the choice of partners in terms of individual preferences.
This means that Filter Theory suffers from culture bias, as it assumes that the rules of partner choice in Western cultures apply to relationships universally.
Research to support-Taylor (2010) – people tend to marry someone from their own ethnic group
Kerckhoff and David (1962) – attitude similarity is an important factor in staying together
Social Exchange Theory- Researcher
Thibault and Kelley
Social Exchange Theory- AO1
In order to assess the potential profits we gain from a relationship (i.e. rewards — cost), we can use:
- Comparison levels (CL)- refer to our perception of what we are worth and so what we can get out of a relationship.
- Comparison of alternatives- Individuals may consider ending a relationship if they can see that there are other alternatives which would give them a larger return on the investment
Social Exchange Theory- AO3
☹️ better for relationship breakdown then development
SET may be more useful as a retrospective explanation as to why relationships break down, rather than an explanation of their initial development.
☹️ Assumptions
SET makes the incorrect assumption that considerations of alternatives triggers dissatisfaction- Argyle (1987). Miller (1997)
☹️deterministic
According to SET, if the costs outweigh the rewards, a person will want to opt out of a relationship. However, there are many cases where people stay in high-cost relationships (for example, when one partner is chronically ill) without feeling dissatisfied.
Equity Theory - AO1
suggests that striking a balance between the ratio of cost and reward that each individual has is the key to a successful relationship.
One partner’s benefits minus their costs, should equal another partner’s benefits minus their costs.
The relationship has to be seen by both as ‘fair’
Relationships can only be salvaged by behavioural - a individual increases their own cost to increase the reward of other individual
Cognitive - one or both individuals their expectation and perception of equity more realistic
Equity Theory- A03
🙂Supported evidence
evidence supporting the link between equity theory and the satisfaction or commitment in a relationship, as suggested by Utne et al
The study found that partners who rated their relationships as more equitable were also more satisfied with them.
☹️Clark and Mills
Suggest that the equity theory may be a better or more valid explanation for friendship and business/non-personal relationships, as opposed to simply romantic relationships
☹️Beta Bias
There are important gender differences in perception of relationship fairness that Equity Theory ignores. Researchers such as Sprecher (1992) found that women tend to be more disturbed when under-benefitting from relationships, and feel more guilt when over-benefitting
🙂Avoids gender bias
Clear gender differences between males and females and highlight the importance of conducting research into males and females separately, to avoid gender bias
Investment Model- Researcher
Rusbult
Investment Model-AO1
extension of the SET
Saw commitment as a key factor. Depends on satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment
Investment acts as a deterrent to leaving a relationship- two types
- Intrinsic- the things put directly into the relationship e.g money, time and effort
- Extrinsic - things brought into peoples life through the relationship e.g children, house
Rusbult identified maintenance mechanism partners use to keep relationships going :
- Accommodation – acting in a way that promotes relationships, rather than keeping a tally of costs and rewards.
- Willingness to sacrifice – putting partner’s interests first.
- Forgiveness – willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes, both minor and serous ones.
- Positive illusions – being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities.
- Ridiculing alternatives – minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.
Investment Model- AO3
🙂High ecological validity
it can easily explain abusive relationships, by shifting the focus from relationship satisfaction to that of investment and viable alternatives
🙂Good Methodological study
Self- report measure - The key elements of his model focus on an individual’s perception of their investments, resources and energy, as opposed to a quantitative value
🙂No culture bias
Doesn’t seem to be an issue for the Investment Model. meta-analysis of 52 studies found support for the Investment Model across individualist and collectivist cultures, such as in the USA (individualist culture) and in Taiwan (collectivist culture).
Duck’s phase model - AO1
5 phases to explain the breakdown of a relationship
- Phase 1 - intra-psychic- cognitive thing- keeps thought to themselves- ‘ I can’t stand this
- Phase 2 - dyadic-when person confronts their partner and voices dissatisfaction
- Phase 3 - social phase- where the break up has been made public usually leads to the dissolution of the relationship
- Phase 4 - Graveyard dressing - confirms the end of a relationship. Key to this phase is ‘keeping a good face’ and maintaining a positive social image
2006 duck proposed an additional stage
- Phase 5- Resurrection phase - people move pass the pain and distress associated with ending a relationship - experience personal growth
Duck’s phase model- AO3
☹️Methodological issue
Much of the research features self-report measures which are completed retrospectively after the end of the relationship. This means that the data may rely too much on the respondents’ accuracy of memory and a realistic perception of the relationship.
🙂useful real life application
Useful applications, especially in relation to couples’ counselling.
☹️Culturally bias
assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case.
The model is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma.
Virtual relationship in social media- Researchers
Walther
Sproull and Kiesler
Virtual relationship in social media- AO1
hyper personal model-suggest that self-disclosure happens earlier
‘selective self-presentation’- Participants in online conversation have more time to ‘edit’ their responses to present themselves in a more positive light.
Projecting a positive image will then make an online partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing the intensity of the relationship.
Stranger on the train’
Sproull and Kiesler
Reduced cue theory - 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 communications
these barriers (‘gates’) are absent- this creates more opportunities for shy and less attractive people to develop romantic relationships.
Virtual relationship in social media- AO3
🙂research that supports
There is research evidence supporting some of the core principles/assumptions of the hyper personal model, as suggested by Whitty and Johnson (2009) – more self-disclosure online
☹️research that goes against reduced cue theory
Online relationships may still share the similarity of featuring nonverbal signals, as suggested by Walther and Tidwell (1995). This includes the use of emojis, acronyms and length, timing and tone of messages (refutes reduced cue theory)
☹️Beta bias
There are also important gender differences in virtual relationships. McKenna et al. (2002) found that women tended to rate their relationships formed online as more intimate, and valued self-disclosure, especially in regards to emotion, more highly than men.
☹️Cultural differences
Attitudes to self-disclosure are different in different cultures. For example, Nakanishi (1986) found that, in contrast to American culture, women in Japan preferred lower levels of self-disclosure in close relationships.
Parasocial relationships- Researcher
Maltby- Stages
McCutcheon- Absorption Addiction Model
