Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > Relationships > Flashcards

Relationships Flashcards

1
Q

Sexual selection

A

Evolutionary explanation saying desirable attributes are passed on over generations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Human reproductive behaviour

A

Any behaviour which relates to opportunities to reproduce. Includes evolutionary mechanisms like mate choice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Anisogamy

A

Refers to difference between male and female sex cells

Men have vast numbers. Women have set number of eggs.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Consequences of anisogamy

A

Mate selection is no shortage of males but fertile women are rare.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Inter-Sexual Selection

A

Females chose quality over quantity due to fertility only lasting so long
Trivers females make bigger commitment.
Fisher sexy-sons hyp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Fishers sexy-sons

A

Females mate with desirable men so their children are “sexy”. So the child will also be desirable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Intra-sexual Selection

A

Male strategy quantity over quality
Competing with other men to sleep with the most. (Way to dimorphism)

Makes males more aggressive and prefer younger women.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ao3 of sexual selection & Human Reproductive behaviour

A

•Research supp. Buss survey 10,000 in 33 countries find women prefer money men prefer looks.
•Research supp. Clark & Hatfield asked uni students for sex. Men said yea women said no. Support make strat
•evolutionary theory. Singh find males like hip and waist size attractive at 0.7 ratio
•Lim: Ignores social influence & culture diff. Bereczki social change has consequences for women not be resource orientated anymore.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Self-Disclosure

A

Sharing what matters and what is important to us to help partner understand us.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Social penetration Theory

3 factors

A

Altman & Taylor
1. Self-disclosure is limited partners penetrate each other as they disclose more
2. Breadth is narrow. Low risk disclosure as too much can be off putting
3. Depth increases. As layers are revealed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Reciprocity of self-Disclosure

A

Belief that there should be a balance of self -disclosure between partners.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Ao3 of social penetration

A

• Supp research. Laurenceau et al. Higher self-disclosure = higher level of intimacy. Repeatability.
•Real life app. Hass & Stafford. 57% of homosexuals said self-disclosure deepened relationships. Temporal modern ptps and generalisable.
•Lack cultural val. Tang et al. USA people self-disclose more than those in china.
•Correlation. Self-Disclosure linked to more satisfaction. Not causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Physical attractiveness - Key Studies

A

Symmetrical faces
Halo effect
Matching hypothesis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Symmetrical faces study

A

Shackelford & Larsen
Symmetrical faces more attractive due to sign of genetic fitness.
Also more attracted to neotenous face (baby) e.g small noses or soft chin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The Halo Effect

A

Dion
Attractive people perceived as more kind, strong and social.
McNulty. Initial attractiveness continues to be important.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The Matching Hypothesis

A

Walster et al
People chose partners of similar attractiveness. To avoid rejection and maximise physical attractiveness we find balance in people of similar attractiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Ao3 of Phsyical attractiveness

A

•research supp halo effect. Palmer & Peterson. Attractive people rated more politically knowledgeable & competent.
•Lim: Ind Diff. Towhey. Gave ptps pics of stranger and biography info ptps rated. Attractiveness more important for ptps with sexist attitudes. Heteronormative
• Research supp for matching hyp. Feingold. Meta-analysis of 17 studies correlation of attractiveness in partners.
•cultural val. Cunningham. All cultures rated females with, small noses etc as attractive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Filter Theory

A

Kerckhoff & Davis. Field of available partners with 3 main factors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Filter 1 of Filter Theory

A

Social Demography.
Proximity is accessibility. Outcome of homogamy. Meaning more likely to form relations with people who share ethnicity, religious belief and education level.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Filter 2 of Filter Theory

A

Similar in attitudes. Byrne.
Similar values = More attractive. Found similar attitudes more important in early stages in early stages of relation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Filter 3 of Filter theory

A

Complementarity.
Partners being different and helping fulfil each other. E.g one being socially proactive and other being introverted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Ao3 of Filter Theory

A

•Research supp. Peter Winch. Similarity typical at early stages. Happily married complementarity more important.
•Lim: Failed replication. Levinger social change depth due to length. Issue with applying to homosexual or collectivist.
•Causality is wrong. Anderson. Longitudinal study. Partners more similar over time. (Emotional Convergence)
•Lack temp val. online dating makes filter 1 waffle. No need for similar social class etc)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Social Exchange Theory

A

Thibault & Kelly
Satisfaction in profit. Min max principle min cost and max prof.
Profitable relationships continue.

24
Q

Comparison level SET

A

Amount of reward that you believe is deserved. From previous relations and social norms we make base beliefs on what we expect. If equal or better we will remain in relationship

25
Comparison Level of Alternatives. SET
Whether potential partners are more rewarding. People stay in current relationships if that have nothing better to do
26
Factors effecting comparison level
Previous relations: Expect better than previous Self-esteem: High self-esteem = Greater expectation Culture: Some cultures undervalue genders.
27
Stages of relationships
Sampling: Exploring potential rewards Bargaining: 1st stage of romantic relation. Negotiate dynamic of relationship Commitment: reward increase, cost lessen as relation stables Institutionalisation: Partners settled as norms established.
28
Ao3 of SET
•Research supp. Kurdeck found committed relationships involve lower cost and higher reward. Lim: Equity theory as perceived sense of min max. •Argyle argues don’t consider alts until dissatisfied. Not accepted by wider scientific comm. •Low scientific val. Hard to quantify reward & cost. Lack of empirical evidence. Not falsifiable.
29
Equity Theory
Walster et al. Ratio of reward and cost. Level of profit should be roughly the same as
30
What is over benefitting in equity theory
Less dissatisfaction but likely to discomfort and shame as they receive more than put in
31
What is underbenefitting in equity theory
Least satisfied results in anger and resentment. Putting lots in and getting nothing back.
32
Ao3 of Equity Theory
•Supp research. Real life app. Utne et all surveyed 118 married. Found more equitable were more satisfied. •lacks cultural val. aumer-ryan. collectivist more satisfied with equity. Ethnocentric •Indicidual diff. Huseman. Benevolent partners who give. And entitled who expect more.
33
Paradoxical Relationships
Horton & Wohl One-sided unreciprocated relationships where fan expends lots of energy.
34
Celebrity Attitude Scale
Lynn McCutcheon et al Based of large survey by John Maltby
35
Stage 1 of Celebrity Attitude Model
Giles & Maltby Entertainment - Social Most people in para relationships. Celebs seen as entertainment least intense level.
36
Stage 2 of Celebrity Attitude Scale
Intense - Personal Intermediate level with greater personal involvement. E.g see them as a soul mate. Typical of teenagers obsessed with every detail of celeb
37
Stage 3 of Celebrity Attitude Scale
Borderline pathological Most intense level. Celeb worship to extreme. Spends large sums of money or illegal activities.
38
Absorption-Addiction Model
McCutcheon Celeb worship to compensate for life deficiency, like lack of identity. Parasocial relation allows fulfilment in everyday life.
39
First Stage of Absorption-Addiction Model
Intense focus on parasocial relationship and sense of fulfilment motivates more intense attachment
40
Second stage of Absorption-Addiction Model
Addiction Sense of fulfilment becomes addictive and more extreme things are done to achieve fulfilment.
41
Absorption-Addictions relation to previous topics
Bowlby’s Attachment Theory Early difficulties leads to struggle with successful relations = fake relation. Ainsworths Strange Situation Insecure attachments especially insecure-Resistant more likely to form parasocial.
42
Ao3 of Parasocial Relationships
•Supp research. Maltby linked lvl1 to extraverts. Lvl2 neurotic traits. Lvl3 psychotic personality. Eco valid •High cultural val. Shmid & Kilmmt parasocial in Germany and Mexico. Celeb worship everywhere. •Lack explan power. Can’t explain diff forms, classify or prevention. Lacks application. •Lack supp. McCutcheon ptps with insecure attachment no more likely for pararelations.
43
Virtual Relationships: Hyperpersonal Model
Joseph Walther Argues online relationships can be more personal and greater self-disclosure as it happens earlier. Also more intimate as easier to manipulate self-disclosure.
44
Stranger on train
Rubin More likely to share personal info with stranger due to likeliness to never see again.
45
Reduced Cues Theory
Sproull & Kiesler CMC relations less effective that Graf due to reduced cues like body language. Leads to deindividualisation
46
Absence of Gating in Virtual Relations
Barriers “gates” are absent allowing more opportunity for relationship Gate is a preference that would hinder development like shy or unattractive By revealing gates after relationship less likely to be fazed
47
Ao3 of virtual relationships
•Lack supp. Walther & Tidwell cues in online interactions. Eg style of timing messages and emojis. •research supp. Whitty & Joinson. Online very direct, intimate. Self dis. •Gender diff. McKenna women rated CMCs as more intimate. Alpha bias. •Absense of gating (str). McKenna & Bargh 70% of CMC lasted more than 2 year. Higher than offline relation. Self-did.
48
Rusbult’s Investment Model
Satisfaction: partner feel reward exceed cost. Quality of Alternative: ? Investment Size: Resources associated with relationship.
49
Maintenance Mechanism RIM
1. Accommodation: promote relation. Not tally cost and reward 2. Willingness to sacrifice: partner interest first 3. Forgiveness 4. Pos illusions: unrealistically positive. 5. Ridicule alternative.
50
Investment Types
Intrinsic : Any resources put directly into relationship. Extrinsic : Investments not originally in relationship
51
Ao3 of RIM
•Research supp. Le & Agnews. Women made most investment and less attractive alt stay in abusive relation. •Oversimp. Goodfield & Agnew more to invest than resource. Original flaw. •Correlation not causation. Cannot conclude one factor causes commit.
52
Phase Model
Duck 4 stages: Intra-psychic Dyadic phase Social Grave-dressing
53
Stage 1 of Phase model
Both partners eval cost and reward. Mostly private and unlikely to be shared.
54
Stage 2 of Phase Model
Previous thoughts about future of relation now openly discussed by partners. Voice concerns to increase cost. Provoke partner to salvage or public breakup
55
3rd stage of Phase Model
Public break up. Friend have to eval to give reassurance or blame. Friends must break up. Final attempt at salvaging if wanted.
56
4th stage of Phase Model
Confirms end of relationship. Both move on. Trying to maintain pos social image. Involves false stories about cause.
57
Ao3 of the Phase model
•5th stage. Rollie & Duck resurrection phase. Oversimp. Model should be dynamic progression not sequence. •Flemlee fatal attraction hyp. Desirable features less value over time. Lack eco. •Methodological issues. Self-report measures completely retrospective. Unwilling to intervene so early stage mostly speculative.

Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions