Relationships Flashcards
(AO1) evolutionary explanations
*basis of human reproductive system is anisogamy (difference between M and F sex cells)
*Men- intra sexual selection. quantity > quality
*Women- inter sexual selection. quality > quantity
*sexy sons hypothesis. Fischer (1930) said females who mate with males with certain characteristic will pass on the ‘sexy’ trait to son to produce greater offspring.
(AO3) evolutionary explanations
*Strength. Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent M + F psych students out on uni campus asking to sleep together. 0% females said yes but 75% males did
*Strength. Buss (1989) survey of 10,000 across 33 countries. Females preferred resource related characteristics. Men preferred youth and attractiveness
*Limitation. Bereczkei et al (1997) found social and cultural factors her changed. There are more women working therefore not looking for resource related characteristics.
(AO1) Attraction: self disclosure *****
*vital role in relationships after initial looks
*Altman and Taylor (1973) social penetration theory = gradual process of revealing info which is reciprocated.
*breadth and depth. start of relationship = the outside of the onion as there is lower risk. As relationship continues we release more and more info which goes greater into the onion.
*Reis and Shaver (1988)breadth and depth said there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
Revealing intimate details about oneself at the beginning of a relationship may be detrimental effects e.g. revealing ‘too much information’. This demonstrates to the other person that at least one person in the relationship does not trust the other.
(AO3) Attraction: self disclosure *****
*Strength. Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found strong correlation between satisfaction and self disclosure. Sprecher (2013) found couples happier when they self disclose in turns. COUNTERPOINT, correlational data.
*Strength. Research can help improve communication. Haas and Stafford (1998) found 57% of couples said open self disclosure helped to deepen the relationship causing greater commitment.
*Limitation. Culture, Tang et al (2013) reviewed couples in USA and China. USA had greater sexual self disclosure however there was no difference in satisfaction
(AO1) Attraction: physical attractiveness *****
*Shackelford and Larson (1997) discovered people with symmetrical faces are deemed more attractive as a sign of genetic fitness. the same can be said for neotenous features (baby face) as this can trigger protective/ caring instinct.
*Halo effect - distinguishing feature can have disproportionate influence on judgement.
*Waltser and Waltser (1969) matching hypothesis. Matched males and females at school dance. pretended it was based on personalities but it was actually random. most liked partners were those most attractive and not based on personality and didn’t support the theory.
(AO3) Attraction: physical attractiveness *****
*strength for halo effect. Palmer and Peterson (2012) found physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. these findings have implications for political success and there could be dangers of democracies.
*limitation. research challenging matching hypothesis. Taylor et al (2011) studied activity logs of popular online dating website. real world test as it was genuine site. they found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. underlines validity of matching hypothesis.
*counterpoint - choosing an individual is different from selecting a partner for a romantic relationship. Feingold (1988) carried meta analysis of 17 studies and found significant correlation in ratings of physcial attractiveness between romantic partners. also , just because they seek more attractive partners doesn’t mean they get them.
(AO1) Attraction: filter theory
*Kerckhoff anf Davis compared attitudes and personalities in short term and long term relationships. devised filter theory to demonstrate how relationships form.
*SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY (1st filter level) - factors that influence meeting the partner in the first place. more likely to meet people physically close to you like work/religion/uni
*SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES (2nd filter level) - share more beliefs and values. important for short term relationships and helps promote self disclosure.
*COMPLEMENTARITY (3rd filter level) - having traits that other partner lacks. gives the feeling that being together forms a hole.
(AO3) Attraction: filter theory
*strength. Kerckhoff and Davis longitudinal study. Questionnaires to couples on attitude/complementarity. Relationship ‘closeness’ was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later . found closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples under 18 months. for couples longer than 18 months, complementarity of needs predicted closeness.
*counter. Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies failed to replicate original findings of Kerckhoff and Davis. could be due to social change affecting relationships therefore decreasing temporal validity of original study
*complementarity may not be central to all longer-term relationships. Markey and Markey (2013) found lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied. when traditionally the theory stated complementarity is best (1 dominant and 1 not). Sample of lesbian couples had been in romantic relationships for a mean time of 4 and a half years. suggest similarity of beliefs might be greater than complementary for long term couples.
(AO1) Theories: social exchange theory *****
*Thibault and Kelly (1959) proposed SET as economic exchange. Furthered this with the minimax principle. Minimum loss and maximum gains. Therefore the relationship is judged like profit
* comparison level = amount of rewards you believe you deserve. Develops out of previous relationships. Influenced by social norms. Relationship is worth it if comparison level is high
* comparison level of alternatives - second measure of profit. Would there be greater rewards/ lower costs in a different relationship?
*final feature of T and K SET is 4 stages of relationships developing
1) sampling stage. Explore costs and rewards
2) bargaining stage. Beginning of relationship
3) commitment stage. Stable, low costs and high rewards
4) institutionalisation stage. Costs and rewards firmly established.
(AO3) Theories: social exchange theory *****
- strength. Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian and straight couples to complete questionnaries measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. Found partners who were most committed had most rewards and fewest costs. 1st study to demonstrate main social exchange theory concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other. Increases validity.
- limitation. SET concepts are too vague and hard to quantify. Rewards and costs are subjective and hard to define therefore hard to study. Concept of comparison levels is problematic. Unclear of what values of comparison level and comparison level of alternatives must be before dissatisfaction occurs in relationship
(AO1) Theories: equity theory *****
*economic theory. Balance > profit. Couples want to have same levels of profit.
* ratio of rewards matter most. The greater inequity, the greater dissatisfaction.
*theory created due to the criticism of the social exchange theory
(AO3) Theories: equity theory *****
*Utne et al (1984) survey of 118 married couples age 16-45. Couples who saw themselves equitable were most satisfied.
*limitation. Counterpoint. Other variables more important. Berg and McQuinn (1986) found that not all ending relationships had different equity. Therefore things like self disclosure are more important.
*Limitation. Cultural differences. Aumer - Ryan et al (2007) found individualistic cultures like US had greater satisfaction when the relationship was equitable but collectivist culture were most satisfied when 1 was overbenefitting. True for both male and females. Therefore, limited theory.
(AO1) Theories: investment model *****
*Rusbult et al (2011) said 3 factors go into commitment
1) satisfaction. Based on concept of comparison level. Want more rewards than costs.
2) comparison with alternatives
3) investment. Intrinsic = resources put in. Tangible like money or intangible like energy. Extrinsic = tangible like cars or intangible like shared memories.
(AO3) Theories: investment model *****
- strength. Meta analysis. Le and Agnew (2003) reviewed 52 studies. 11,000 ppts from 5 countries. Found satisfaction, investment size and comparison with alternatives all predicted relationship commitment. Outcomes was true for men and women, across cultures and also homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
*model explains relationships that involve intimate partner violence. Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied domestically abused women and found high investment correlated to those most likely to go back into the relationship. Had low comparison of alternatives. - limitation . Oversimplifies investment. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to a relationship than just resources put in. In early stages of relationship, there is little resources put in. Partners make future plans. Motivated to commit to these to see how they work. Therefore, model is limited as fails to recognise true complexity of investment like how to future makes a difference.
(AO1) Theories: Ducks model
- Duck (2007) phase model of the breakdown of a relationship
1) INTRA-PSYCHIC PHASE - one partner dissatisfied. Weighs up pros and cons of the relationship and these are only private thoughts
2) DYADIC PHASE - confrontation about the relationship. It is either rescued or crumbles
3) SOCIAL PHASE - break up is public with friends and family. Usually no return.
4) GRAVE DRESSING PHASE - aftermath of the break up
