Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary -
Two strengths?
- RESEARCH SUPPORT. Clarke and Hatfield, asked ‘will you go to bed with me?’, 75% of men agreed, no women agreed.
- RESEARCH SUPPORT. Buss, 10,000 adults across 32 countries, found women prefer intelligence, financial security and ability to provide, while men prefer younger women.
Evolutionary-
Two limitations?
- TOO SIMPLISTIC. Buss and Schmitt, people adopt similar mating strategies when both looking for long term relationships. Both choosy, not just women.
- SOCIAL CHANGE. Bereczkei, social change helped consequences for woman’s male preferences. Unlikely only preference is evolution.
Attraction- self disclosure-
Two strengths?
- RESEARCH SUPPORT.
- HELPS IMPROVE COMMUNICATION IN RELATIONSHIPS.
Attraction- self disclosure-
Two limitations?
- FINDINGS ARE OFTEN CORRELATIONAL.
- MAY SUFFER WITH CULTURE BIAS.
Attraction- PA-
Two strengths?
- RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE HALO EFFECT. Palmer and Peterson (2012), attractive people were deemed more politically knowledgable.
- RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION. Cunningham (1995), females who had large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows, were rated as more attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men. Consistent across different societies.
Attraction- PA-
One limitation?
RESEARCH CHALLENGING THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS. Taylor (2011), used popular online dating sites, real world test of the matching hypothesis, found people sought people who were more attractive than themselves.
Attraction- FT-
One strength?
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR KERSCHOFF AND DAVIS. Longitudinal, questionnaire in SiA and C, found under 18 months, SIA was more important and over 18 months C was more important.
Attraction- FT-
Three limitations?
- FAILURE TO REPLICATE. Levinger- cant replicate due to social change, and issues defining long term relationships.
- INCONSISTENT FINDINGS. Markey and Markey (2013), equally dominant lesbian couples were happiest at 4.5 years in. At this point C should have been more important.
- PERCEIVED SIMILARITY WAS MORE IMPORTANT. Montoya (2008), actual similarity was only important in short term, lab based relationships. Partners perceive more similarity as they become more attracted to each other.
Theories- SET-
One strength?
RESEARCH SUPPORT. Kurdeck (1995), asked G, L and H to do a questionnaire. Most committed couples had higher rR, lower C. Shows main SET concepts are universal.
Theories- SET-
Three limitations?
- IGNORES FAIRNESS. Fairness is deemed more important than the balance of R and C. SET is a limited explanation, cannot account for a proportion of the findings.
- CAUSE AND EFFECT. Argyle (1867), (we are dissatisfied with our relationships when C>R, or alternatives are more attractive), dissatisfaction in the relationship comes first as a result of other factors and we then start to weigh up the R and C.
- VAGUE AND SUBJECTIVE. Rewards.losses for one may not be the same for another, difficult to measure. Can’t tell how attractive alternatives need to be to become dissatisfied.
Theories- ET-
One strengths?
RESEARCH SUPPORT. Utne (1884), survey on 118 recently married couples, (aged 16-45), together for two or more years. Measured equity with two self-report techniques. Equitable couples were more satisfied with their relationship, than those who reported over or under benefiting.
Theories- ET-
Three limitations?
- QUESTIONED. Equity may be a feature of satisfaction in relationships but Berg and McQuinn (1986), equity did not increase over time, as would be predicted by the theory. Relationships did not differ in equity if they ended or did not end. Other variables such as self-disclosure were deemed more important.
- CULTURE BIAS. Aumer-Ryan (2006), found couples in individualistic cultures tended to be most satisfied when the relationship was equitable, collectivist cultures, they were more satisfied with their relationships when they were over benefiting. Over benefitting should lead to dissatisfaction.
- IGNORES INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. Not all partners are equally concerned about achieving equity in a relationship. Huseman (1987) argued some partners were benevolent, so are happy to put more into a relationship. Other can be ‘entitleds’ they believe they deserve to receive more rewards than they put in. Neither B or E are concerned by equity.
Theories- RSM-
Two strengths?
- RESEARCH TO SUPPORT. Le and Agnew (2003), meta analysis of 52 studies, over 30 years, 11,000 pps, five countries. Found consistent evidence that S, CWA, and I were the main contributions for relationship commitment. Most committed relationships were the most stable and lasted the longest.
- EXPLAIN S WHY PEOPLE STAY IN RELATIONSHIPS WITH INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE. A criticism of SET. Is it could not explain IPV relationships, suggests relationships may have too many investments. Rusbult and Martz (1995), research with domestically abused women, more likely to return to an abuser if they had invested in a relationship and there were no appealing alternatives.
Theories- RSM-
Two limitations?
-MOST OF THE RESEARCH WAS CORRELATIONAL. Cannot identify that the factors identified by the model cause commitment in a relationship. It could be: the more committed you feel to your partner, the more investment you are willing to make, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model.
- OVERSIMPLIFIED. Goodfirned and Agnew (2008), model focuses heavily on investments being those which are already put into the relationship. Future plans are also important to consider.
Theories- DPM-
One strength?
USEFUL APPLICATIONS. It can be reversed to see how a relationship can be repaired, has implications in couples counselling. I-P phase can be encouraged to focus on positive aspects of relationships.
