Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences a01 + a03
Based on natural selection- behaviour is driven by the need to survive and reproduce. Genes that give a reproductive advantage will be passed on.
Males and women have different strategies:
Inter sexual selection (female strategy)- due to high investment cost (pregnant and looking after) and parental certainty (they acc carry baby) they pick the best quality male from a wide selection. They base on attractive features , indicating good genes.
Intra sexual selection(male)- because of low investment costs and parental certainty they compete against each other for access to lots of women. Favours large dominant males.
(Men want as many because they have low investment to the child and women are picky)
These two strategies lead to different characteristics desired. (Male-female dismoprhism).
Females look for - qualities that help raise kid. (Money/dominance)
Males look for- qualities that indicate fertility.(young. Large breasts. Hourglass)
+ buss. Surveyed 10,000 adults 33 countries on partner preferences. Males prioritised young and good lucks. Females prioritised money. Supports the preferences of the evo approach.
+ he did this over 33 countries so it’s universal and generalisable.
Factors affecting attraction (self disclosure)
A01 + a03
Self disclosure- revealing informations about ourself. We tend to reveal more to those we like. We like people that reveal more to us. Symbolises trust.
Information revealed changes as relationship progresses. (Altman and Taylor) devised social penetration theory.
SPT- as breadth and depth increases so does the relationship.
Breadth- types of topics. Some may be unavailable until a certain level.
Depth- level of information revealed.
Reciprocity- only develops if both are self disclosing
Attribution- considering why they are self disclosing. If for attention and telling everybody( not attractive) or if bc we are special they are telling us (attractive).
Appropriateness- however info that reveals too much too early (TMI) can lower attraction.
- reductionist. Reduced relationship satisfaction to a single factor. Ignores other aspects such as physical attractiveness.
+has and Hartford. Studies homosexual couples. 57% self disclosure is a main way of maintaining close relationship.
+ specher and hendrick observed couples on dates. Found that as self disclosure increased so did satisfaction.
Factors affecting attraction (filter theory)
A01 + a03
Filter theory (Kirchhoff and Davies) - there are limiting factors that affect choice of partner. Only attracted to those who pass through series of filters.
3 filter stages:
1) social demography- coming into contact with people due to how we spend our time. E.g- where we live , work/education. Because of this it links to social class and level of education.
2) attitudes- people with similar core values are seen as more attractive and compatible. We come into these people through point 1
3) complementarity- differences that are mutually beneficial. (One likes to cook one like to clean up. If both like to clean they may clash) important for success in long term.
+ Kirchhoff and Davies. 7 month questionnaire on short/long term relationships. Found similarity of attitudes was most important in short term and complementarity in long. Suggests the importance of these filters in attraction.
- used young American sample. Ungeneralisable
- lacks temporal validity as dating across cultures is becoming more normalised.
Factors affecting attraction (physical attractiveness)
A01 + a03
Attraction- we are attracted to people who are physically good looking. Backed up by evo explanation as we look for good health such as muscles or good complexion.
Halo effect- when we see somebody attractive we attribute other things to them. Such as they are intelligent , sociable hardworking. This results in interacting more positively towards them and can lead to it being more successful.
However matching hypothesis states we can’t mate with the most attractive member of the population.
- we realistically rate our own attractiveness based on others.
- we look for partners at a similar level of attractiveness
- we avoid pain of rejection by not chasing too high a level
- we retain partners by picking similar level so they don’t leave for somebody their level.
- can be seen as a shallow view to mating. Most would argue it is not the most important factor
+ murstein. 197 photographs of couples. Judged on attractiveness as individuals. Found that each couple had similar eating to each other.
Social exchange theory/ equity theory a01
(Thibault and Kelley)- suggest an economic theory of relationships similar to a business. We want to maximise profits and minimise losses in a relationship to maintain it. (Min-max principle)
Rewards and costs- both partners looking for mutual benefits (rewards) creates success.
Rewards - entertainment/financial security/ sex
Costs- giving up time/ leading to emotional instability / losing money.
>rewards and costs are viewed different by people.
Comparison level- an estimation of how rewarding a relationship should be. We do this by comparing to previous relationships and media ones. Comparison level links to self worth. (Abused = simple benefits are great)
Comparison with alternatives- people look at other potential partners and consider if they would be a higher profit. If higher profit can be found , relationship will end.
Equity theory is also an economic model but develops SET by adding the missing factor of equality.
Equality - more satisfied in relationship if they feel the balance and are getting what they deserve.
Balance- profits and loss should be the same.
Over benefits- partner gets more benefits than the other they will feel shame and guilt
Under benefits - if one gets less they will feel resentful
Change in perspective - overtime what is considered unfair may change. Early on attraction may be viewed as more important than equity. However Hatfield suggest later stages of relationship couple are less likely to “keep score”
Social exchange/ equity theory a03
SET+ rusbult. Questionnaire with 17 M and 17 F on costs and rewards and investments. Found cost and benefit was less applied at start of relationship and more later. Also that alternatives became less attractive as commitment developed.
- low validity. People don’t actively rate their relationship it’s more of an unconscious process
ET+ utne. Self report on newly married couples with 2+ years relationship. Questionnaire measured their perceived equity. Found parents who felt they were equal thought relationship was more stable and were happier.
- correlational. Rather than lack of equity leading to dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction could lead to a lack of perceived equity.
+ both account for individual differences due to range of perceptions about reward and costs in relationships.
- SET is too simplistic as it doesn’t account for the role of equity. Suggests as long as in profit it will continue but one maybe in less profit.
Rusbults investment model a01 + a03
Investment theory- develops SET. When continuing relationship more than satisfaction has to be considered such as alternatives and what has already been invested.
Suggests commitment = satisfaction - alternatives + investment.
Investment size- investments are distinguished from costs and rewards as things that can’t be recovered after a breakup
2 categories of investments:
Intrinsic- resources put directly in to relationship. (Time spent/ self disclosure/ emotional work)
Extrinsic- resources that used to be outside the relationship but are now strongly connected. (Memories/ shared friendships/ material possessions)
Investments- can be rewarding (shared friendships) or costly (money (buying a house)
Commitment- increased by the amount of investment as person feels locked in. Ending relationship would mean sacrificing these resources.
+ rusbult. Questionnaire of 17 M and 17F. Found as relationship developed , increased investment lead to more commitment and reduced quality of alternatives. Suggests commitment is linked to investment
- low validity as couples won’t rate their relationship it is an unconscious process.
- doesn’t explain how early relationships survive difficulties with no investments.
- self report leads to response bias.
Ducks phase model of breakdown a01 + a03
Duck suggests 3 reasons for relationship breakdown:
Pre-existing doom- individuals aren’t compatible from the start.
Mechanical failure- compatible people are no longer able to function as a couple.
Sudden death- traumatic event such as cheating or argument.
Ducks phase model suggests a breakup isn’t a sudden event and it ends as a result of progressing through stages:
1)intra-psychic stage- one or both consider feelings about problems in relationship. Plan to confront partner. May consult friends
2) dyadic stage- partner confronts the other to discuss these issues.
3) social phase- parents announce they are splitting to social network. Engage in activities to get past relationship and practical aspects are negotiated. Social network members here pick a side and provide support.
4) Grave - dressing phase. - partners create a narrative of how breakup happened so they can save face. Often blaming partner or other circumstances. They may question their decision here.
+ tashiro and frazier. Self report of 96 undergraduates on how breakup affected them. Found it lead to distress and growth. Supports grave dressing stage allowing recovery.
- lacks population validity as only undergraduates, not generalisable.
+ practical applications. Understanding the breakup stages has been useful for councillors in supporting couples.
- beta bias. Minimises difference between men and women as they have different reasons for break up usually.
Virtual relationships a01 + a03
Virtual relationship- development of relationship through social media. Psychologist are concerned with why it leads to higher disclosure and quicker intimacy.
4 reasons:
Absence of gating mechanism- internet communication removes barriers that may prevent initial face to face encounters. E.g a disability.
Reduced cues theory- lack of facial expressions over text leads to people reading too much into text or reading what they want to believe.
Anonymity- deindividuation occurs reducing feelings of responsibility. People can say what they want and what they wouldn’t in real life leading to intimacy.
Hyper personal model (Walther) - people can manipulate their online identity significantly. Can become hyper honest/dishonest. Make an imaginary version of themselves to fit the others desires.
+ benefits to virtual relationships. Allows people to access relationships who are usually gated. Reducing loneliness.
- not all virtual platforms are the same. People gaming together may disclose more than on a dating site as less chance for face to face.
+ whilst NVC is absent (facial expressions) there are other cues such as emojis and length of time between texts.
Para-social relationships a01
Para social relationship- a one sided relationship where one is heavily invested and the other has no idea of existence.
This is common with celebrities but can also happen with things such as fictional characters or a student with their teacher.
McCutcheon (2002) - suggest these relationships make up for deficits in real relationships and provide a sense of identity that may be missing. They can be addictive leading to individual developing through more and more intense stages (celebrity attitude scale):
Entertainment social- celebrities are discuss with friends for entertainment.
Intense personal- obsessive thoughts and emotions. Feeling in some way the relationship is real.
Borderline pathological- extreme uncontrollable behaviours for celebrity (tattoo of them)
He also devised the absorption- addiction model to explain how people use these relationships to escape their own life.
Absorption- by taking in content of the celebrity and their success they feel closer to them and share their success.
Addiction- behaviours escalate similar to drug addiction resulting in attempt to contact or stalk the celebrity.
Para social relationship a03
+Bowlbys theory of attachment links as there is a type of person that would develop a para social relationship. Type C children from strange situation. Poor relationships with child negatively affect
Their IWM and they then feel the need for this due to their poor relationships.
- research looks at people already in parasocial relationship. Therefore difficult to establish cause and effect.
+ jenson and Jenkins take a positive view of relationship. Reduced loneliness as they can form connections with other fans and find a sense of meaning.
