relationships Flashcards
Darwin 1871
sexual selection, selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction
Trivers 1972
females make greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after birth of their offspring, concequences more serious, mating stratergy partner who is able to provide resources
Fisher 1930
sexy sons hypothesis, genes we see today are those that enchanced reproductive success.
Clark and Hatfield 1989
sent male and female psychology students across campus, approached other students to ask to sleep with them, 0% females said yes, 75% men did immediately, females choosier than men.
Buss and Schmit
both males and females adopt similar mating stratergies when seeking long-term relationships. Both sexes choosy, more complex and nuanced view than previously.
Buss 1989
survey of 10k adults in 33 countries, asked questions relating to variety of attributes that evolutionairy theory predicts are important in partner preference.
females greater value on resource- related characteristics then males,
males valued physical attraction and youth (good reproductive capacity).
predict sexual selection theory
Altman and Taylor 1973
social penetration theory, gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, reciprocal exchange of self-disclosure.
Reis and Shaver 1988
needs to be a reciprocal element to self-disclosure.
Sprecher and Hendrick 2004
studied heterosexual dating couples, strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners.
Haas and Stratford 1998
57% homosexual men and women that open and honest self-disclosures was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships. benefits, RWA.
Tang et al 2013
research into self-disclosure, concluded that men and women in the US self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China, no diff in satisfaction.
limits self-disclosure theory, culturally relative.
Shackelford and Larsen 1997
ppl with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive , genetic fitness, difficultt to fake.
dion et al
physicallly attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people, self fulfilling prophecy, halo effect.
walster and walster 1969
we look for partners who are similar to ourselves instead of most appealing, the matching hypothesis.
Walster et al 1966
the computer dance, male and female students, rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers, completed questionaire about themselves, told the data about them and that this info will be used by computer to decide partner for evening (randomly irl).
hypothesis not supported, most liked also most physically attractive.
Berscheid et al 1971
replicated this study, ppt self selected their parter from variation, chose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
tend to choose partners whose attractivess matches out own.
matching hypothesis
Palmer and Peterson 2012
physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unnatractive, even when no experience of those attractive, implications for political process.
support for halo effect.
Cunningham 1995
women w large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows rated highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men, consistent across all cultures, genetic fitness.
evolutionary explanation
Taylor et al 2011
activity logs of popular online dating site, real world test of matching hypothesis, online daters sought meetings with more attractive partners,
limits matching hypothesis.
Kerckhoff and Davis 1962
Filter theory, we all have field of availables in partner choice, entire set of potential factors, 3 main factors
social demography- start
similarity in attitudes- earlier stage
complementarity- long term
Kerckhoff and Davis study
longitudinal, both parters in couple completed questionnaires to asses similarity and complementarity, closeness measures by questionaire 7 months later.
closeness + similarity <18
closeness+complementarity>18
Markey and Markey 2013
lesbian couples of equal dominance most satisfied, sample together more than 4yrs
similarity not complementarity
Montoya 2008
meta-analysis of 313 studies, similarity afffected attraction in only short-term lab based interactions, irl percieved similarity stronger predictor of attraction, can effect attraction and not a cause, not predicted by filter model.
Thibault and Kelley 1959
social exchange theory, behaviour in relationships reflects economic assumptions of exchange, minimax principle.
Kurdek 1995
asked lgbtq and straight couples to complete questionaire measuring commitment and SET variables, those most committed also percieved most rewards and fewest costs
Argyle 1987
we dont monitor costs and rewards, or consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied
Utne et al 1984
carried out survey of 118 recently-married couples, measuring equity with two-self report scales. ppts 16-45yo and together 2+ years, couples who thought they are equitable were more satisfied than those over/under benefiting.
Berg and McQuinn 1986
equirt didnt increase over time as predicted by equity theory, none ended over under/over benefitting, other variables more important.
Aumer-Ryan et al 2007
cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction,
individualist culture considered their relationship most satisfying relationship equitable.
collectivist culture most satisfied when overbenefitting.
Huseman et al 1987
ppl less concerned about equity than the norm. some partners benevolent, prepared to underbenefit, entitleds, believe they deserve to be overbenefitted. less concern about equity than theory predicts. not universal feature of romantic relationship.
Rusbult 2011
Rusbult’s investment model, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment. commitment is the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships.
Le and Agnew 2003
review 52 studies 1970s-1999, 11k ppts from 5 countries, all elements of investment model all predicted relationship commitment.
relationships with high commitment were most stable and lasted longest, true for all genders and cultures.
Rusbult and Martz 1995
domestically abused women at shelter, those most likely to return to abusive partner (mosy committed) made greatest investment and had fewest attractive alts.
strength investment model.
Goodfriend and Agnew 2008
in early stages few investments made, extended original model by including investments made in future plans, motivated to commit to each other, want to see future plans work out, doesnt recognise full complexity.
duck 2007
phase model of relationship breakdown, process of 4 stages: intra-psychic phase, dyadic phase, social phase, grave dressing phase.
duck 1994
people in the intra-psychic phase encourged to focus their worrying on the +ve aspects of their partner.
RWA of ducks phase model.
Duck and Rollie 2006
fith phase, resurrection phase, ex-partners apply experience gained to future relationships. progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable, may return. processes that occur more important than linear movement.
sproull and kiesler 1986
reduced cues theory, virtual relationships less effective than FtF bc lack nonverbal and emotional cues, de-individualisation in virtual relationships.
Walther 1996,2011
hyperpersonal model, VR more personal and greater self-disclosure than FtF ones, develop quicker, more intense and intimate once established.
1. selective self-presentation, hyperhonset/dishonest.
2.positive impression, reinforces 1.
Bargh et al 2002
anonymity another factor , strangers on a train effect, feel less accountable for your behaviour if others unaware of identity, disclose more.
Walther and Tidwell 1995
online interactions use other cues, style and timing of messages, nuances like acronyms and emojis, effecive substitutes for tone.
limits reduced cues theory
Ruppel et al 2017
meta-analysis of 25 studies, compared self-d in FtF and virtual interactions.
self-report showes freq, breadth, depth of self-disclosure greater in FtF relationships.
experimental studies showed no significant differences between FtF and VR in terms of self-disclosure.
limits hyperpersonal model.
McKenna and Bargh 2000
support for absence of gating. online com by shy, lonely socially anxious people. able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations. 71% VR survived at least 2 years.
shy people benefit, no gating.
McCutcheon 2002
celebrity attitude scale CAS.
linked levels to deficiencies, the absorbtion addiction model.
Maltby et al 2006
used the CAS in large-scale survey, identifies 3 levels of parasocial relationships.
entertainment-social
intense-personal
borderline-pathological
McCutcheon et al 2016
used the CAS to measure level of parasocial relationships and ppts intimate problems. ppts high on borderline-path/ intense-pers had high degree of anxiety in intimate relationships, those at ent-social level didnt.
predictive validity for levels.
Maltby et al 2005
assessed boys and girls 14-16yrs, focus on girls w intense-pers PSR w adult female bc admired body shape, all girls poor body image, may contribute to ED.
supports models link between poor ps functioning and level of PSR.
Dinkha et al 2015
compared Kuwait and US cultures, ppl w insecure attachment type most likely to form intense PSR with TV celebs and characters, both cultures true.
McCutcheon CP dinkha
measures attachment types and celeb attitudes 299 american ppts. attachment didnt effect liklihoof of forming PSR with celeb. PSR doesnt compensate for attachment issues
