Relationships Flashcards
All A03 for Physical attractiveness
(+) Walster (1966) PA important in dates
(-) Problems With Walsters R.S - Bias -students
(+)R.S - Feingold- correlation for matching hypothesis
(+) Practical application - dating apps
(-) Alt.expl - Self disclosure
(+) Walster (1966)
physical attractiveness
752 American students.
Asked to assess their date during a dance.
Found that physical attractiveness was most important factor in enjoying date. More important than intelligence and personality
(-) Problems with Walster research
physical attractiveness
Bias sample -
Research on students in America in 1966
= problem because we don’t know if physical attraction is important for others who are not American students in 1966
All A03 points for Self-disclosure theory
(+) R.S - Sprecher + Hendick = strong correlation in heterosexual couples between self disclosure + several levels of satisfaction
(-) only focus on heterosexual couples. No longer valid as there are many more relationships
(+)R.s - Hass + Stratford. In gay relationships, self disclosure = most important (remember shkspr = gay)
^reliability
(-) Cultural Differences - Bias towards western culture. China share less sexual info. limited
(+) P.A - Couples counselling
All A03 for filter theory
(+) R.s: Festinger - Social Demography = ^Form relationship
(-)Problems w R.s Festinger = Bias sample, students + friendships!!! Also Temporally invalid
(-)Levinger-said Theory is outdated
(-) Anderson (2003) Issues of cause + effect = similarity = attracted ? ora
(-)P.A - Dating apps - optional filters
(+) R.s: Festinger - Social Demography = ^Form relationship
Filter theory
observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments.
Found students were 10x more likely to dorm relationships with people who lived in same building
(-)Problems with R.s: Festinger - Social Demography = ^Form relationship
Filter theory
Bias sample = students
Temporal validity = 1950
-Focus on friendship formation
Problem as don’t know if Social Demography affects romance, people who aren’t students or people in present day
Weakens support and therefore validity
(-)Levinger-said Theory is outdated
Filter theory
Society has changed
Much more fluidity
Online dating apps
Much more fluidity
No longer valid
(-) Anderson (2003)
Filter theory
Issues of cause + effect = similarity = attracted ? ora
Longitudinal study , found that cohabiting partners became similar in emotional responses and attitudes over time over time. This is called emotional convergence.
Suggests cause and effect between attraction and similarity cannot be determined.
All evaluation for Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
(+)R.S - Clark + Hatfield - casual sex
(-) R.s is flawed. Bias, temporal
(+) R.s-Miller - lap dances (Mlen)
(-)Indiv.Diff- Not all want children. Ignores Homosexual relationships.
(-) Bio. reductionism - sex cells
(-)Socially insensitive
(+)R.S - Clark + Hatfield (1989)
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Field study - university campus.
Found 0% of women said yes to casual sex whereas 75% of men said yes to casual sex with an attractive Confederate.
Supports mating strategies theory- suggests women are more selective
(-) problems with Clark + Hatfield (1989) study
Expl
Evolutionary explanation of partner preferences
Bias sample = university campus
Lacks temporal validity = 1989
Therefore we don’t know if M+F have diff strategies who are not university students, or in the current day. Weakens support for study :. Theory may be less valid
(+) R.s-Miller
Evolutionary explanation of partner preferences
Found lap dancers earned more tips during oestrus.
Suggests that there is a way of signalling oestrus for women which men can detect.
^ validity
(-)Socially insensitive
Evolutionary explanation of partner preferences
Gender bias -> Alpha bias
exaggerates stereotypes
Leads to prejudice + discrimination.
Ethical credibility questioned
All A03 for Social Exchange theory
(+)R.S - Hatfield. Over benefited = more satisfied
(-) Problem with Hatfield R.s = only Newlyweds Rusbult…
(-)Argyle Gender differences -
(-) Culture Bias
(+) P.A - couples counselling
(+)R.S - Hatfield. (1979)
Social Exchange theory
looked at newlyweds. Found
Over benefited = more satisfied
Rewards outweigh costs
(-) Problems with R.s = Hatfield
Social Exchange theory
only studied Newlyweds.
Rusbult’s investment model suggests Social exchange theory may expl beginning, As relationship develops, commitment develops = more important
(-) Gender differences Argyle (1988)
Social Exchange theory
Found under-benefited men feel more aggrieved than under benefited women
(-) Culturally Biased
Social Exchange theory
Psychologists argue theory is rooted in individualistic ideals of striving for oneself. In other cultures, maintenance may not be governed by personal gain
All A03 for equity theory
(+)R.S- Utne = equitable = maintained
(-)Problems with Utne R.s = Bias sample, self report data
(+)R.S- Hatfield. Inequitable relationships more likely to end after 3 month. large sample
(-)Indiv. Diff = Huseman- Benevolents + entitleds
(-) Alt. theory = Rusbult investment model
(+)R.S- Utne
Equity theory
Surveyed recently married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. Found couples with equitable relationships were more satisfied
(+)R.S- Hatfield.
Equity theory
Interviewed 500 students. Inequitable relationships more likely to end after 3 month. large sample
(-)Indiv. Diff = Huseman-
benevolents = happy to contribute more
entitleds = do not feel guilty when over benefitted
All A03 for Rusbult’s investment model
(+) R.S = Le + Agnew = all variables predict relationship commitment
(-) Cause + Effect - Investment <–> Commitment
(-) Alt expl = Agnew + Goodfriend = future investments
(+)P.A - explain why people stay in abusive relationships
(+)More Holistic = reflects complexity of rel
(+) R.S = Le + Agnew
Investment Model
Meta analysis on 52 studies represented 11,000 p.ps from 5 countries.
Found all 3 variables predict relationship commitment across all cultures
(-) Alt expl = Agnew + Goodfriend
Investment Model
original model fails to acknowledge future investments.
Suggests original model is limited expl of relationships as it fails to recognise the true complexity of relationships
All A03 for Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
(-)Incomplete. Duck added 5th phase- resurrection
(+) P.A- counselling
(-)Mostly Culturally biased research support
(-) Retrospective. Ignores earlier stages
(+)More Holistic. Focus on social networking too
(-)Culturally biased
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
-Moghaddam suggested relationships in individualistic cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end.
-However, in collectivist cultures, relationships are more likely to be obligatory and less easy to end.
Due to involvement in wider family and even partners having little control.
Not generalisable
(-)Research supporting Duck’s model is Retrospective. Ignores earlier stages
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
methodological issues.
p.p give their experiences of relationship process after relationship has ended. What they recall may not be reliable or valid.
-Usually earlier stages that are distorted or ignored.
incomplete. internally invalid . unreliable description of how relationships end
(+) P.A- counselling
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
useful to help us recognise that different repair strategies are more helpful for breakups at different stages.
E.g: duck recommends that people in intra-psychic could be encourages to focus on positive thinking.
Extremely useful
(-)Incomplete. Duck added 5th phase- resurrection
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
phase is focused on ex-partners focusing on future relationships using experiences gained from previous relationship.
Also noted it’s possible to move fluidly between stages.
Original model limited as it does not account for dynamic, complex, volatile nature with breakups along with fifth possible stage of model
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
All eval points for Virtual relationships - Self disclosure
(-) problems with reduced cues theory. Walther + Tidwell.
(+) R.S for Hyperpersonal model- Whitty + Joinson.
(+)R.S- absence of Gating. McKenna + Bargh. lonely + anxious ppl
(-)Research becomes outdated quickly due to advancements in technology
(+)P.A- dating websites
(+) R.S for Hyperpersonal model- Whitty + Joinson.
Virtual relationships - Self disclosure
summarise large amount of evidence that people are motivated to VR in ways that are hyperhonest or hyperdishonest.
E.g: questions asked in online discussions tended to be very direct and intimate . Different compared to small talk in FtF.
(+)R.S- absence of Gating. McKenna + Bargh.
Virtual relationships - Self disclosure
Looked at VR in lonely + anxious people
-Found such people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations.
- 70% of romantic relations formed online lasted more than 2 yrs.
-This is higher than relationships formed in offline world
(-) problems with reduced cues theory. Walther + Tidwell.
Virtual relationships - Self disclosure
Cues aren’t reduced, they’re just different.
e.g: style and timing of messages.
also, acrostics (e.g: LOL) + emojis are used as an effective substitute for facial expressions and voice tones in FtF interactions.
All A03 for parasocial relationships Attachment theory
(+) R.S - Bartholomew + Harowitz = ‘pre-occupied’ attachment model
(-)problems with B + H R.S = only correlation
(-)R.R- McCutcheon = no difference between secure
(-)Individual differences - not all with attachment issues form PSR
(-)Deterministic
All A03 for parasocial relationships Absorption addiction model
(+)R.S - Roberts low self esteem ^
(+) R.S Maltby =poor body image linked to PSR with celebrities
(-)Problems with R.S, Maltby, Bias sample, 14-15 age. Only found for females
(-)Socially sensitive
(-)Indiv. diff
(+) R.S Maltby =poor body image linked to PSR with celebrities
Absorption addiction model
investigated link between celebrity worship and body image in males and females 14-16
Found that female adolescents formed an intense personal relationship with a female celebrity who’s body shape they admired.
Also tended to have poor body image (indicating poor psychological functioning)
(-)R.R- McCutcheon = no difference between secure
Attachment theory of parasocial relationships
-measured attachment types and celebrity related attitudes in 299 p.p
-Found those with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships with celebrity’s than those with secure
Bartholomew + Horowitz
-Identified different attachment styles, one = pre-occupied , people have negative self model and positive other model, :. these people will actively seek validation from others.
-Found pre occupied to be correlated with celebrity stalking
Suggests attachment types do influence tendency to celebrity stalking
