Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
A
2
Q
Intersexual Selection
A
3
Q
Intrasexual Selection
A
4
Q
Anisogamy
A
5
Q
Fitness Indicators
A
6
Q
Sexual Dimorphism
A
7
Q
Clark & Hatfield (1989)
A
8
Q
Buss (1989)
A
9
Q
Dubar & Waynforth (1995)
A
10
Q
Face Validity of Partner Preferences
A
11
Q
Universality of Partner Preferences
A
12
Q
Singh Waste to Hip ratio
A
13
Q
Determinism of Partner Preferences
A
14
Q
Free Will in Partner Preferences
A
15
Q
Reductionism of Partner Preferences
A
16
Q
Chang (2011)
A
17
Q
Zahavi (1975)
A
18
Q
Berezkei et al (1997)
A
19
Q
Self Disclosure
A
20
Q
Social Penetration Theory
Altman & Taylor (1973)
A
21
Q
Reis & Shaver (1988)
A
22
Q
Sprecher & Hendrick (2004)
A
23
Q
Laurenceau et al (2005)
A
24
Q
Hass & Stafford (1998)
A
25
Tang (2013)
26
Correlation Vs Causation
| Self Disclosure
27
Gender Differences
| Self Disclosure
28
Halo Effect
29
Thornhill & Gangsted (1993)
symetrical faces are more attractive
jaw line - good immune system
30
Bruce & Young (1993)
31
Matching Hypothesis
| Walster
32
Shackleford & Larson (1997)
33
Aronson et al (1966)
34
Palmer & Peterson (2012)
35
Cross Cultures
| Physical Attractivenss
36
Walster (1966)
37
Towhey (1979)
38
Taylor et al (2011)
39
Personality Factors
40
Filter Theory 1.
41
Filter Theory 2.
42
Filter Theory 3.
43
Proximity
44
Physical Attractiveness
| Filter Theory
45
Similarity
46
Complement
47
Competent
48
Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)
49
Byrne (1997)
50
Winch (1973)
51
Self Report Issues
| Filter Theory
52
Online Dating
| Filter Theory
53
Direction of Causality
| Filter Theory
54
Filter Theory Evaluation
55
Social Exchange Theory - Thibault & Kelly (1959)
56
Kelly (1959)
57
4 stage model
58
Clark & Mills (1979)
59
Kurdek (1995)
60
Argyle (1987)
61
Miller (1997)
62
Moghadam et al (1993)
63
Hatfield (1979)
64
Social Exchange Theory Evaluation
65
Mikula et al (1983)
66
Gergen et al (1980)
67
Equity Theory
68
Walster (1979)
Profit
Distribution
Dissatisfaction
Realignment
69
Kahn et al (1980)
70
Stafford & Canary (2006)
71
Unte et al (1984)
72
Aumer-Ryan et al (2006)
73
Van Yperen & Buunk et al (1990)
longitudinal study with 259 couple
84% married and 16% co-habiting, volunteers recruited through a local paper.
Obtained a score of equity using Hatfield global measurement of satisfaction.
65% men felt equitable 25% over benefitted 25% of woman under benefitted.
1 year later couples were asked about their satisfaction those who were equitable at stage 1 were the most satisfied, next those who were over-benefitted then those who were under benefitted.
74
Equity Theory Evaluation
75
Rusbault’s Investment Model
76
Satisfaction
77
Quality of Alternatives
78
Investment
79
Intrinsic investments
80
Tangibles
81
Intangibles
82
Extrinsic investments
83
Maintenance Mechanisms
84
Rusbult (1983)
85
Rhahgan & Axsom
86
Jerstadt (2005)
87
Le & Agnew (2003)
88
Impett, Beals & Peplau (2002)
89
Investment Model Positive Methodology
90
Investment Model: Universal
91
Investment Model = Simplistic & Reductionist
92
Intra-psychic
93
Dyadic
94
Social Phase
95
Gravedressing
96
Useful Application of Duck's Phase Model of Rela Breakdown
97
Ressurection
98
Retrospective Data
| Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
99
Evaluation of Duck's Phase Model of Rela Breakdown
adresses cog & behav
description not explanation- suggests all breakdowns = same
doesnt account for causual relas / friendships
100
Fatal Attraction Hypothesis
101
Akert (1998)
women - friends
102
Moghaddam et al (1993)
103
Evaluation Studies
Existence of the resurrection stage was supported by Tashiro and Frazier’s (2003) study; participants (undergraduates who had recently experienced a break-up) reported experiencing personal growth as a result of it, as well as emotional distress.
There is also research to indicate the importance of the grave-dressing stage, as the dissolution of a relationship is a very stressful event, and many people experience anxiety and depression while going through it. However, Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that if ex-partners viewed the situation, rather than their own faults, as being responsible for the break-up, they often saw the ending of relationships in a more positive light.
104
Rollie & Duck
added resurection phase
made clear dont have to progress through in linear fashion & ince enter phase it is not inevitable that the rela will progress to the next one - can resolve issues and move backwards
105
Dickson, 1995
Social phase affected by individual differences
Teenage relationships less serious and very little effort to reconcile however older couples is more distressing and friends close to the couple will work harder to try and reconcile
106
Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
107
Hyper Personal Model
108
Cooper & Sportaria (1997)
109
Reduced Cues Theory
| Sproull & Keisler (1986)
110
Bargh et al (2002)
111
Yum & Hara
112
Walther (1995)
113
Walther (2011)
114
Online & Offline Relationships
115
Affects of an Absence of Gating
116
Virtual Relationships Cultrally Biased
117
McKenna & Bargh (2000)
118
Entertainment Social
119
Intense Personal
120
Borderline Pathological
121
Absorption Addition Model
absorp - looking for satis - achieve sense of fufill ment motivates to become m intensly attached
addiction - sense of fufill ment becomes addictive needs m intense to sustain - extreme behavs - delus & stalking
122
Maltby (2005)
123
Maltby (2003)
124
Schmid & Klimmit (2011)
125
Attachment Theory Explanation
Cole & Leets (1999) I-R m likely to form PSR bc fear rejection & find relas dif due to clingy jealous nature
I-A avoid any kind of rela even PSR
126
Kienlen et al (1997)
63% of stalkers experience loss of primary caregiver
m than 50% exper abuse - sups idea that distrupted a patterns = related to PSRs
127
Cole & Leets (1999)
128
McCutcheon et al (2006)
129
McCutcheon (2006)
