relationships Flashcards
sexual selection
characteristics and behaviors that increase reproductive success (strength, wide hips) giving an evolutionary advantage, as those having these are more likely to survive and pass on genes responsible
anisogamy
refers to the differences between male and female gametes (sex cells). It is important because it gives rise to differences in the way that males and females select partners to produce with
male gametes
extremely small, highly mobile and do not require a lot of energy to produce
female gametes
large, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require a huge investment of energy
inter-sexual selection
the way that certain traits increase attractiveness and make it more likely that members of the opposite sex will mate with them
quality over quantity, preffered by females
quality over quality
females optimum mating strategy
to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources
intra sexual selection
refers to the competition between one gender (normally males) to be able to mate with the opposite sex. The winner of the competition can reproduce and pass on to his offspring
quantity over quality
males optimum reproductive strategy
to mate with as many females as possible as minimal effort is required to produce enough sperm to theoretically fertilise every woman on earth
self disclosure
when you gradually reveal personal and intimate information about yourself yo another person which creates feelings of trust and closeness in relationships
social penetration theory
Altman and Taylor
the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, involving the reciprocal exchange of depth and breadth of information
physical attractiveness
an immediate way of selecting potential partners.
e.g. facial symmetry is attractive to males and females because it is an honest signal of genetic fitness and neotenous features are attractive because these trigger a protective instinct in males
halo effect
a bias where we assume attractive people have attractive personalities too
matching hypothesis
Walster
we choose partners who are similar in physical attractiveness to ourselves and to do this we have to make a realistic judgement about our own value to a potential partner
filter theory
Kerkhoff and Davis
we select partners by narrowing down the available options using three filters
social demography
refers to a wide range of factors which influence the chances of potential partners meeting eachother in the first place e.g. proximity, accessibility, social class, levels of education.
this enables the realistic field of potential partners to be much narrower because our choices are constrained by social circumstances.
similarity of attitudes
we find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of a relationship, so we tend to discount available individuals who differ from us in their attitude
E.g. partners believing that family is really important
complementarity
when each partner has traits that the other lacks. this makes couples feel like the complete eachother and that they fulfil eachothers needs, which adds depth to a relationship making it more likely to flourish
e.g. one partner has a caring nature and the other likes to be cared for
social exchange
Thibault and Kelley
an economic theory of how relationships form and develop.
It assumes that romantic partners act out of self interest in exchanging rewards and costs and a satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs (the minimax principle) and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship
comparison level
the amount of rewards you believe you deserve to get.
It is developed out of experiences of previous relationships and influenced by social norms
linked to self esteem and we will consider if a relationship is worth pursuing on the basis of our CL being high
comparison level for alternatives
predicts that we will stay in out current relationship only so long as we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives
based on our current relationship and being in a satisfying relationship will mean that you may not notice that alternatives could be available
sampling
we explore the awards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationship or by observing others do so
bargaining stage
this marks the beginning of a relationship when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable
commitment stage
as time goes on the sources of costs and rewards becomes more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
institutionalisation
the partners are settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of rewards and costs are firmly established
equity theory
an economic theory of how relationships develop. it acknowledges the impact of rewards and costs but criticises social exchange theory for ignoring the central role of equity- the perception that partners have that the distribution of rewards and costs in the relationship are fair
equity
fairness
what matters is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same
e.g. if one partner put a lot in relationship but also gets a lot out of the relationship it will be fair
inequity
when one partner overbenefits (experience guilt, discomfort and shame) and the other underbenefits from the relationship (anger, resentment and hostility), leading to dissatisfaction and unhappiness
the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction (positive correlation)
dealing with inequity
the put upon partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible.
revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable to them, even if nothing actually changes. what was seen as a cost is now accepted as the norm
rusbults investment model
commitment in romantic relationships depend on three factors: investment, satisfaction and comparison with alternatives
satisfaction
based on the concept of the comparison level.
a satisfying relationship is judged by comparing rewards and costs and is seen to be profitable if it has many rewards (support and companionship) and few costs (conflicts and anxiety)
each partner is generally satisfied if they are getting more out of the relationship than they expect based on previous experience and social norms
investment size
refers to the extent and importance of the resources associated with the relationship, can be understood as anything we would lose if the relationship were to end
intrinsic investments
any resources we put directly into the relationship. they can be tangible (money and possessions) or intangible (energy emotion and self disclosure)
extrinsic investments
resources that previously didn’t feature in the relationship but are now closely associated with it.
they can be tangible (possessions bought together, children) and intangible (shared memories)
commitment vs satisfaction
the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships is commitment to the investment they don’t want to see go to waste
maintenance mechanisms
act to promote the relationship (accommodation)
they will put their partners interests first (willingness to sacrifice)
forgive them for serous transgressions (forgiveness)
unrealistically positive (positive illusions)
negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives)
ducks phase model of relationship breakdown
a phase model of relationship breakdown. the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through 4 distinct stages
each phase is marked by a partner reaching a threshold which is a point where their perception of their relationship changes.
breakup beings once a partner realised that they are dissatisfied and distressed with the way things are going
intrapsychic phase
‘I can’t stand this anymore’
thinking you are dissatisfied with the relationship so you focus on the partners behaviour.
the partner weighs up whether to express the dissatisfaction or repress it
dyadic phase
I would be justified in withdrawing
discussing your dissatisfaction of the relationship to your partner and there are possible attempts to resolve the problem and repair the relationship
social phase
I mean it
discussing the relationship with other people outside the relationship e.g. seeking support from friends and family.
The partner also negotiates the terms of the breakup
gravedressing
it is now inevitable
break up and move on. You come up with explanations of why you broke up placing the blame on the partner to pain you in a positive light
reduced cues theory
Sproull and Keisler
CMC relationships are less effective because they lack many of the non verbal cues that we normally depend on in FTF interactions (e.g. physical appearance, facial expression and tones of voice)
this leads to de-individuation as it reduces people’s sense of individual identity which encourages disinhibition in relating to others. These relationships are more likely to involve blunt and even aggressive communication and less likely to self disclose
the hyperpersonal model
Walther
online relationships are more personal and involve greater self disclosure than FTF ones. This is because self disclosure happens earlier and are more intense.
boom and bust phenomenon
Cooper and Sportolari
relationships can end quickly because the high excitement level of intimacy isn’t matched by the level of trust between the relationship partners
selective self-presentation
presenting yourself in a positive and idealised way
people online can manipulate their online image and have control over what to disclose and what cues to send
anonymity
when you’re aware that other people do not know your identity, you feel less accountable for your behaviour so you can disclose more
absence of gating
factors that may have prevented a relationship forming in real life (e.g. a stammer or social anxiety) are not present in the virtual context.
social demography is less likely to serve as a gate so people can communicate and maintain relationships over large distances, people outside social class and ethnicity
parasocial relationships
one sided relationships where a person gets attached to someone they don’t know in real life e.g. celebrity
levels of parasocial relationships
McCutcheon developed the celebrity attitude scale which was used in a large scale survey by Maltby et al.
They identified 3 levels of parasocial relationships each level describing the attitudes and behaviors linked to extreme forms of celebrity worship
entertainment social
the least extreme form of parasocial relationship, with the person seeing celebrity as a source of entertainment and something to discuss socially
e.g. reading the news about celebrity X is fun
intense personal
more intense
the person in personally invested in the celebrity’s life and may have obsessive thoughts about them
e.g. if someone gave me money I would spend it on a personal possession used by celebrity X
Borderline pathological
the most extreme form of parasocial relationships
the person has delusional fantasies about a celebrity and may exhibit irrational behaviour that prevents them from living a normal life
e.g. celebrity X is my soulmate I am going to marry them
the absorption addiction model
McCutcheon
explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives, this relationship may help them escape from reality
e.g they may have a weak sense of self identity and also lack fulfilment in their everyday relationships
absorption
seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, becoming preoccupied in their existence and identify with them
addiction
sustaining commitment to the relationship in order to feel a stronger and closer involvement with the celebrity. This may lead to more extreme behaviours like delusional thinking
e.g. stalking a relationship because you believe that he or she really wants to reciprocate your feelings but someone is stopping them
the attachment theory explanation
there is a tendency to form parasocial relationships in adolescence and adulthood because of attachment difficulties in adulthood
insecure resistant types are more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults because they need to have unfulfilled needs met but in a relationship that is not accompanied by the threat of rejection, break ups and disappointments that real life relationships bring
