Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanations for partner preference - AO1
Sexual selection - genes selected that promote survival (natural selection) or successful reproduction (sexual selection).
Anisogamy - difference between male and female sex cells - gives rise to two different mating strategies. Male sperm is plentiful and always available. Eggs are large and static, and require investment of energy.
Inter-sexual selection - between sexes - preferred method of females. Consequences are more serious for females, more resource investment, so they are more choosy. Signs of genetic fitness are selected - wide hips in women, height and resources in men. Sexy sons hypothesis - females want to produce ‘sexy sons’ who can further genes.
Intra-sexual selection - preferred male strategy - competition within sexes. Aggression in males and showing off, mate retention. Females boosting attractiveness - like blush as a sign of fertility. Male competition gives rise to dimorphism - physiological differences between sexes, like peacocks or lions.
Evolutionary explanations for partner preference - AO3
+ Research support - uni campus (will you go to bed with me tonight?) 75% males agreed 0% females agreed. Suggests evolution drives different mating strategies.
C.P - sexual selection simplistic - strategies similar when looking for long term partner. Look for loyalty, kindness, humour.
+ Support for inter-sexual selection - 10000 adults, 33 countries survey. Males seek youthfulness, females seek resources. Reflects universal sex differences.
- Social and cultural influences. Contraception and workplace roles mean women less dependent on resources. Theory lacks temporal validity.
Self-disclosure - AO1
Self-disclosure - learning about new partner at start of relationship. Vital role beyond attraction in early relationship, but needs to be used carefully.
Social penetration theory - partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives through self-disclosure gradually.
Breadth wide at start - low-risk info. Revealing personal information too early may threaten relationship. Depth more important as relationship progresses, intimate info shared like painful memories. Depenetration - partners disclose less as they gradually disengage from relationship.
Disclosure must be reciprocated, not just breadth and depth.
Self-disclosure - AO3
+ Research support - correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure according to study of hetero couples. Later study showed that relationships are closer and more satisfying with reciprocated self-disclosure.
C.P - correlation not causation - bidirectional - satisfied partners may disclose more. Could be a third variable like time spent together .
+ Real-world application - 57% of homosexual men and women said they use self-disclosure as a maintenance strategy. Skill can be learned by less-skilled partners to improve their relationships.
- Cultural differences - less sexual self-disclosure in collectivist cultures but no satisfaction difference. Suggests that theory is culturally biased - can’t generalise.
Physical attractiveness - AO1
Symmetrical face is attractive because a sign of genetic fitness. Neotenous (baby-face) female faces trigger caring instinct - both naturally selected. 0.7 Waist-hip ratio signifier of fertility.
The halo effect - we have positive stereotypes of physically attractive people and assume they have good characteristics (honesty, intelligence.) This can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy, where attractive people are more confident and people treat them better.
Matching hypothesis - we look for partners who are similarly attractive to us. Computer dance study - participants rated for attractiveness then matched with similar partner (pairing was actually random.)
Most liked partners were most physically attractive, rather than matching.
Replication study supports - when participants could pick people, they chose similarly attractive people.
Role of self-esteem - perceived attractiveness - not actual. Explains computer dance.
Physical attractiveness - AO3
+ Support for halo effect - attractive people rated as more politically competent, even when participants knew they had no expertise - implications for politics. Dangers to democracy.
+ Evolutionary explanation - some female characteristics (0.7 waist-hip, large eyes) more attractive universally, to white, Hispanic and Asian people. Supports sexual selection.
- Challenge to matching hypothesis - online dating choices - more attractive people. Contradicts central prediction of matching hypothesis.
C.P - online choices not reflective - may just be fantasies - also people looking for short-term hook-ups.
Filter theory - AO1
Filter theory devised to explain how short-term relationships (18 months and below) progress. Field of availables progresses to field of desirables.
Social demography - factors that influence meeting partners for the first time. Involves proximity, education level, ethnic group, religion. Desire for homogamy - want factors in common.
Similarity in attitudes - similarity of basic attitudes and beliefs is attractive in first 18 months. Promotes self-disclosure and deeper communication.
Complementarity - each partner contributing a trait the other lacks. E.g. one likes to joke, other likes to laugh. More important than similarity after 18 months. Gives couple feeling that they form a whole.
Filter theory - AO3
- Long term lesbian couples more satisfied when dominance levels were similar - goes against complementarity. Sample were in long-term relationships
C.P - dominance not the only feature. Personality and lifestyle more important. - Actual vs. perceived similarity - perceived more important than actual - couples perceive similarity as they get closer. Perceived similarity the effect of attraction, not the cause.
- Social change - 1st filter reduces availables, but technology has changed the scope in recent years. Lack of temporal validity. More people in long-distance relationships and dating between ethnicities.
Social exchange theory - AO1
Economic theory of relationships - people want a net profit in relationships - more rewards than losses. Minimax. Try to maximise rewards. Rewards: emotional support, sex, companionships. Costs: stress, energy, compromise.
Comparison level - amount of reward in relationships you think you deserve - based on past experiences and social norms (TV.) Relationships worth it with high comparison level, affected by self-esteem.
Comparison level for alternatives - we consider whether we could get a better profit from other relationships/being single. Depends on state of current relationship.
Stages of relationship development:
Sampling - exploring rewards and costs
Bargaining - beginning of relationship - exchanging rewards and costs, negotiating.
Commitment - sources of costs and rewards becomes more predictable as relationship becomes stable
Institutionalisation - rewards and costs firmly established.
Social exchange theory - AO3
+ Questionnaire showed relationship commitment associated with SET variables. Confirmed in gay and lesbian couples as well.
C.P - SET ignores equity - reductionist. What matters is if rewards and costs are balanced.
- Direction of cause and effect - dissatisfaction may lead to comparison with other options. Research is correlational and bidirectional.
- Vague concepts - rewards, costs, comparison levels are subjective and hard to operationalise. E.g. loyalty is a reward to some but not others. Unclear what CL and CLalt values must be before dissatisfaction. Hard to test.
- Cannot explain abusive relationships, where abused partner is underbenefitting. Suggests investment theory is more applicable.
Equity theory - AO1
Developed in response to SET - addressing the complaint that it didn’t address equity of costs and rewards.
Both partners’ level of profit needs to be roughly similar, otherwise one overbenefits and other underbenefits. Underbenefitters feel greatest dissatisfaction - anger, resentment, hostility. Overbenefitters feel guilt and shame.
What matters is ratio of rewards to costs - high level of costs with high rewards is acceptable. For example, one partner may work longer hours and bring in more money, but not do domestic tasks.
Consequences of inequity - greater the perceived inequity, greater the dissatisfaction. Changes in equity make us most dissatisfied, e.g. at start of relationship, putting a lot in is normal, but if we gain less and less we feel cheated.
To deal with inequity, underbenefitter usually motivated to make relationship more equitable, or revise their perceptions of costs vs. rewards (cognitive process).
Equity theory - AO3
+ Research support - newly-weds report equity more satisfying than overbenefitting. Aged 16-45, good validity.
C.P - self-disclosure is a better predictor of satisfaction than equity. Equity did not increase over time, as would be expected.
- Cultural limitations - partners in collectivist societies more satisfied when overbenefitting, so equity is not universally applicable. Jamaica compared with US.
- Individual differences - benevolents and entitleds - people can over or under benefit without feeling consequences. Idiographic approach more appropriate perhaps.
- Cannot explain abusive relationships, where abused partner is underbenefitting. Suggests investment theory is more applicable.
Rusbult’s investment model - AO1
Commitment depends on three factors - developed on the basis of SET and equity theory.
Factor 1 - satisfaction. A good relationship has many rewards and few costs, high CL, profitable, minimax.
Factor 2 - CLalt - judging other alternatives, including other relationships or just being single.
Factor 3 - investment - resources put into a relationship would be lost - intrinsic - resources put directly into relationship. Time and money or emotion (tangible or intangibles). Extrinsic - things linked to relationship - shared memories/children. 3 factors combined predicts commitment.
Commitment more important than satisfaction in maintaining relationships. Desire to avoid wasting investment, so will work to repair relationship.
Relationship maintenance mechanisms - forgiveness, willingness to sacrifice. Unrealistic positive illusions and ridicule alternatives - cognitive strategies.
Rustbult’s investment model - AO3
+ Research support - all 3 factors predicted commitment, according to a meta-analysis of 52 studies. True for men and women, all cultures, as well as gay and hetero couples.
C.P - most of research is correlatory - bidirectional.
+ Explains abusive relationships - investment > satisfaction so abused partners stay. Most likely women to return to abusers made the greatest investments and had little alternatives. Shows that satisfaction not enough.
- Oversimplifies investment - not just current resources but future ones, included in extended model. Doesn’t recognise complexity of investment. For example, early relationships have little investment but huge future investment.
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - AO1
- Intra-psychic phase - “I can’t stand this anymore”
Focus on cognitive processes. Partner weighs up costs and benefits and may share them with a friend, evaluates drawbacks of partner. Plans for future. - Dyadic phase - “I would be justified in withdrawing”
Interpersonal processes - series of confrontations. Anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equity. Self-disclosure high in outbursts. Results in determination to fix relationship or desire to end it. - Social phase - “I mean it”
Wider processes involving social networks. Partners will try and form pacts. Gossip is encouraged. Some friends will try to repair, others will blame other partner. Breakups have momentum. - Grave dressing phase - “it’s now inevitable”
Focus on aftermath. Favourable story about breakdown for public consumption. Creating a personal story partner can live with. Sense of rewriting history.
