relationships Flashcards
darwin
sexual selection
concerns the selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction (rather than survival)
-for example, male peacocks tail as a sign of genetic fitness
females who select males with such characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring and therefore preference for tail is perpetuated in future generations
-other characteristics such as aggressiveness are adaptive as they provide an advantage for male over competitors for reproductive rights
Trivers
evolutionary
inter-sexual selection (preferred for female- quality over quantity)
-pointed out that the female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other recesses before, during and after birth of her offspring
Both sexes are choosey, because both stand to lose if they invest recourses in substandard partners
however, the consequences of choosing a wrong partner are more serious for the female - therefore the females optimum mating state is to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide recourses
Fisher
sexy sons hypothesis
the teens we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success
a female who mates with a male who has a certain characteristic will then have sons who inherit this “sexy trait” - making the sons more likely to be selected by successive generations of females who will mate with her offspring
Clark and Hatfield
+research support for inter-sexual selection
supporting the specific role of female choosiness
-sent male and female psychology students out across a uni campus and approached other students with the question of “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. would you go to bed with me tonight?”
Not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of males did immediately.
Buss and Schmitt
-counters clark and Hatfield - too simplistic as strategies differ according to the length of the relationship
-argues that both males and females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships
both sexes are very choosy and look for partners who are loving, loyal and kind for example
-more complex and nuanced view
Buss
+research support for intra-sexual selection
-carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries
he asked questions relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference
he found that females placed greater value on recourse related characteristics than males did, such as good financial prospects and ambition
males valued physical attractiveness and youth (as signs of good reproductive capacity) more than females
Lawson
-sexual selection cannot explain partner preferences in gay men and lesbian women
-looked at ‘personal ads’ placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women (describing what they are looking for in a partner and what they’re offering)
-found the the preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women (physical attractiveness vs recourses)
Altman and Taylor
social penetration theory
gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, giving away deepest thoughts and feelings
-in romantic relationships, this refers to the reciprocal exchange of information between partners
when one partner reveals information, they are signalling ‘I trust you,’ to go further, the other partner must also reveal sensitive information
-as they increasingly disclose more and more romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each others lives, gaining a better understanding if each other
Altman and taylor2
breadth and depth of self disclosure
-as both increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other
-compared to layers of an onion =
- at the start of the relationship, we disclose a lot but what we disclose is superficial “on the surface” - low risk information that we would reveal to anyone - breadth is narrow as many topics are off limits and too much information might be overwhelming
-as relationship develops, self disclosure becomes deeper, removing more and more laters to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wide range of topics and tjhings that matter most to us
-eventually, we are prepared to reveal intimate, high risk information -painful memories and experiences
Reis and Shaver
reciprocity of self disclosure
-point out that, for a relationship to develop, as well as an increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
Sprecher and Hendrick
+research support to self disclosure
-studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure for both partners
men and women who used self disclosure (and believed their partners did too) were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship
Later study - showed that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self disclose (reciprocated)
-increases validity
-however, correlational and may have external variables
Haas and Stafford
+real world application - helping people who want to improve communication in their relationships
- found that in 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships
If less skilled partners learn to use self disclosure, this could bring several benefits o their relationships
Tang
-cultural differences in self disclosure
reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men and women in the US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China, levels of satisfaction were no different
Shackleford and Larsen
Found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive - as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness
Dion
-halo effect (preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people have)
“what is beautiful is good”
-found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
-assumption that good looking people have these characteristics makes them more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them (self fulfilling prophecy)
Walster and Falster
Matching hypothesis
-suggests we look for partners who are similar to ourselves (in terms of physical attractiveness and similar in terms of personality, intelligence etc) instead of choosing the most appealing people
-male and female students were invited to a dance and were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start and completed a questionnaire about themselves - they were told the data about themselves and that this information would be used by a computer to decide their partner (they were paired randomly)
-hypothesis was not supported
-the most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own attractiveness into account
-Berscheid replicated the study but ppts were able to select their partner from people - this time, ppts tended to choose partners who matched them in attractiveness
Palmer and Peterson
+research support for halo effect
found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgable and competent than unattractive people - these beliefs persisted even when ppts knew that these ‘knowledgable’ people had no particular expertise
Cunningham
+evolutionary explanation
found that women who had features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and asian men
-researchers concluded that what is cnsidered attractive is remarkably consistent across different societies
-attractive features are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetrated similarly in all cultures
Taylor
-research challenging the matching hypothesis -not supported by real world research into dating
-studied activity logs of popular online dating sights (measuring acyl date choices and not merely preferences)
-researchers found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
Kerckhoff and David
Filter theory
compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term relationships and devised a filter theory to explain how romantic relationships form and develop
-partner choice = field of availables (entire set of potential romantic partners who we could realistically have a relationship with)
this is a filtered down version of the field of desirables
1- social demography
2- similarity in attitudes
3- complimentary
Kerckhoff and Davis2
+research support of filter theory
longitudinal study in which both partners in dating couples completed questionnaires to assess tow main factors - similarity of attitudes/ values and complementarity of needs
-relationship closeness was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later
-study found that closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples less than 18 months
for couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness
levinger
counters Kerckhoff and Davis OG long study
-pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings due to social changes over time and problems defining the depth of a relationship in terms of length as the go study chose an 18 mont cutoff point to distinguish long term and short term relationships
-lack validity
Markey and Markey
_problems with complimentary - may not be central to all longer term relationships
-one prediction of filter theory is that the most satisfying relationships partners are complementary, for example one may need to be dominent and the other submissive.
-markey and Markey found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied
-similarity of needs rather than complementary may be associated with long term satisfaction, at least in some couples
Montoya
Actual similarity matters less in a relationship than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar
-meta analysis - found that actual similarity affected attraction in only very short term lab based interactions
in real world relationships, perceived similarity was a stronger predictor of attraction
this may be due to the idea that partners perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted
-similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause
Thibault and kelly
social exchange theory - claims that behaviour in relationships reflects economic assumptions of exchange
-minimise loss and maximise gain (minimax principle)
-we judge our satisfaction with a relationship in terms of the profit It yields, defined at rewards minus costs
Blau
social exchange
-relationships can be expensive
Kurdek
+research support for aspects of SET
-asked gay, lesbian and het couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables
found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive
-first study to demonstrate that the main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other
-increase validity in all types of relationships
-however ignores equity
Argyle
-SET claims that dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being profitable
-accoridng to SET, we become dissatisfied when we conclude that the costs of the relationship outweigh its reward and/or that the alternatives are more attractive
but argyle argued that we dont moniter costs and rewards until after we are dissatisfied
Clark and Mills
inappropriate central assumptions
-we cannot apply this to romantic relationships as they are communal based
they do not ‘keep score’ because if they did, all trust would be destroyed
Walster
equity theory
-what matters most with equity is that both partners level of profit (rewards minus costs) is roughly the same
-with a lack of equity, one partner over benefits and one partner under benefits which is considered a recipe for dissatisfaction and unhappiness
Utne
+research support for equity theory
-real world relationships that confirm equity theory as more valid than SET
-carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with 2 self report scaled
-ppts aged between 16 and 45 and had been together for more than 2 years before marrying
-found that couples who considered their marriage equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefiting or under benefitting
McQuinn
-counter point to Utne
-equity may be a feature of satisfaction but MCquinn found that equity did not increase over time, as predicted by the theory
Other variables such as self disclosure were significantly more important
-undermines validity
Aumer-ryan
-cultural limitations of equity theory
found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction
couples from an individualist culture (US) considered their relationships to be satisfying when the relationship was equitable, whereas partners in collectivist cultures (Jamaica) were most satisfied when over benefitting - true for both men and women
Huseman
-individual differences - not all romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity
-suggested that some people are less concerned about achieving equity than the norm
-describe some partners as benevolent who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it (under benefit)
the opposite are referred to as entitled
Rusbult
investment model
factor 1- satisfaction
factor 2 - comparison with alternatives
factor 3- investment
satisfaction vs commitment
relationship maintenance mechanisms
Le and Agnew
+support Rusbult
meta analysis
reviewed 52 studies which included about 11,000 ppts from 5 countries
-found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment see all predicted relationship commitment
relationships in which commitment was the greatest, were the most stable and lasted longer -outcomes true for both women and men, across all cultures and for homo and het relationships
however correlational
Goodfriend and Agnew
-limitation of Rusbult as it views investment in a simplistic one-dimensional way
-point out that there is more to investment than just the recourses you have already put in a relationship
in early stages, partners will have very few investments
-extended rubbles model by including the investments partners make in their future plans (ge motivated to commit to eachother to see their future plans work out)
duck
phase model of relationship breakdown
-Intra physic phase
-dyadic phase
-social phase
-grave dressing phase
Duck and Rollie
added a 5th faze after the grave dressing - the resurrection phase
-ex partners apply to future relationships as the experiences gained from their recently ended one
-also argues that progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable because ut is possible to return to an earlier point in any phase
-og model does not account for the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature
Walther
THe hyper personal model
- agues that virtual relationships can be more personal and involve greater self disclosure than FtF ones - as they can develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier and once established, are more intense and intimate than FtF.
1. sender of a message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send than they would in FtF - selective self presentation
2. receiver gains a positive impression of the sender, they may give feedback (eg respond to fb post) that reinforced the senders selective self presentation
Bargh
another factor that promotes online self disclosure is anonymity - strangers on the train effect - when youre aware that other people do not know your identity you feel less accountable for your behaviours - may disclose more about yourself to a stranger than your most intimate partner
Walther and Tidwell
Lack of support for reduced cues
-point out that people in online interactions use other cues such as style and timing of messages - eg emojis and acronyms
-virtual relationships can be just as personal as FtF
Ruppel
Lack of support for hyper personal model - challenged by findings of meta analysis
-found that self report studies showed that the frequency, breadth and depth of self discourse were all greater in FtF relationships
Whitty and Joinson
Counters Ruppel as there is some evidence that FtF and virtual relationships do differ in the TYPE of self disclosure used
-summarised evidence showing how self-presentation is manipulated in virtual relationships eg questions asked online can be very direct and intimate which opposes small talk in real life
self presentation can also be hyperdishonesnt
McKenna and Bargh
support absence of gating - shy lonely and social anxious people find virtual relationships especially valuable
-looked at online communication by shy lonely and socially anxious people - found that they were able to express their true selves more than in FtF situations
-of the romantic relationships that initially formed by shy people online, 71% survived at least two years
McCutcheon- Maltby
levels of par asocial relationships
developed the celebrity attitude scale which was used by Maltby
who identified 3 levels of par asocial relationship
-entertainment social
-intense personal
-borderline pathological
the absorption addiction model - linked the levels approach to deficiencies people have in their own lives - eg low self esteem and lack of fulfilment in their everyday relationships
1. absorption - seeking fulfilment in celeb worship motivates an individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celeb to become preoccupied with them and identify with them
2. addiction - needs their dose to increase in order to gain satisfaction - leading to more extreme behaviours and delusions (eg stalking a celeb because they believe that the celebrity wants to reciprocate feelings but their manager is stopping them)
McCutcheon
+strength of levels model is that predictions are supported by research
-eg McCutcheon et al used the CAS to measure levels of par asocial relationships and assessed ppts problems with their own intimate relationships
-ppts who scored high as borderline -pathological or intense personal tended have experience a high degree of anxiety in their intimate relationships in comparison to entertainment social
Maltby
-support for absorption addiction model- showing a link between celeb worship and body image
-addiction absorption model suggests that a deficiency in a persons like (Such as body image) would predispose them to forming a par asocial relationship
-maltby assessed boys and girls aged 14-16 years - researchers were particularly interested in girls who reported intense personal par asocial relationship with an adult female celebrity whose body they admired - found that these girls had poor body image
and may contribute to an eating disorder
Dinkha
Universal tendency
compared 2 contrasting cultures (collecivist - Kuwait and individualist - US)
researchers found that people with an insecure attachment type were most likely to form intense parasocial relationships with Tv personalities and characters
true in both types of cultures
McCutcheon counter Dinkha
measured attachment types and celebrity attitudes in 299 American participants
-researchers found that attachment security did not affect likelihood of forming par asocial relationships with a celebrity
ppts with insecure attachments were no more likely to form such relationships with ppts with secure attachments
