Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Relationships > Flashcards

Relationships Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Intersexual Selection

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Intrasexual Selection

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Anisogamy

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Fitness Indicators

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Sexual Dimorphism

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Clark & Hatfield (1989)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Buss (1989)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Dubar & Waynforth (1995)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Face Validity of Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Universality of Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Singh Waste to Hip ratio

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Determinism of Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Free Will in Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Reductionism of Partner Preferences

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Chang (2011)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Zahavi (1975)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Berezkei et al (1997)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Self Disclosure

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Social Penetration Theory

Altman & Taylor (1973)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Reis & Shaver (1988)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Sprecher & Hendrick (2004)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Laurenceau et al (2005)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Hass & Stafford (1998)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Tang (2013)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Correlation Vs Causation

Self Disclosure

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Gender Differences

Self Disclosure

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Halo Effect

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Thornhill & Gangsted (1993)

A

symetrical faces are more attractive
jaw line - good immune system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Bruce & Young (1993)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Matching Hypothesis

Walster

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Shackleford & Larson (1997)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Aronson et al (1966)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Palmer & Peterson (2012)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Cross Cultures

Physical Attractivenss

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Walster (1966)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Towhey (1979)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Taylor et al (2011)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Personality Factors

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Filter Theory 1.

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Filter Theory 2.

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Filter Theory 3.

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Proximity

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Physical Attractiveness

Filter Theory

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Similarity

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Complement

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Competent

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Byrne (1997)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Winch (1973)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Self Report Issues

Filter Theory

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Online Dating

Filter Theory

A
53
Q

Direction of Causality

Filter Theory

A
54
Q

Filter Theory Evaluation

A
55
Q

Social Exchange Theory - Thibault & Kelly (1959)

A
56
Q

Kelly (1959)

A
57
Q

4 stage model

A
58
Q

Clark & Mills (1979)

A
59
Q

Kurdek (1995)

A
60
Q

Argyle (1987)

A
61
Q

Miller (1997)

A
62
Q

Moghadam et al (1993)

A
63
Q

Hatfield (1979)

A
64
Q

Social Exchange Theory Evaluation

A
65
Q

Mikula et al (1983)

A
66
Q

Gergen et al (1980)

A
67
Q

Equity Theory

A
68
Q

Walster (1979)

A

Profit
Distribution
Dissatisfaction
Realignment

69
Q

Kahn et al (1980)

A
70
Q

Stafford & Canary (2006)

A
71
Q

Unte et al (1984)

A
72
Q

Aumer-Ryan et al (2006)

A
73
Q

Van Yperen & Buunk et al (1990)

A

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
Q

Equity Theory Evaluation

A
75
Q

Rusbault’s Investment Model

A
76
Q

Satisfaction

A
77
Q

Quality of Alternatives

A
78
Q

Investment

A
79
Q

Intrinsic investments

A
80
Q

Tangibles

A
81
Q

Intangibles

A
82
Q

Extrinsic investments

A
83
Q

Maintenance Mechanisms

A
84
Q

Rusbult (1983)

A
85
Q

Rhahgan & Axsom

A
86
Q

Jerstadt (2005)

A
87
Q

Le & Agnew (2003)

A
88
Q

Impett, Beals & Peplau (2002)

A
89
Q

Investment Model Positive Methodology

A
90
Q

Investment Model: Universal

A
91
Q

Investment Model = Simplistic & Reductionist

A
92
Q

Intra-psychic

A
93
Q

Dyadic

A
94
Q

Social Phase

A
95
Q

Gravedressing

A
96
Q

Useful Application of Duck’s Phase Model of Rela Breakdown

A
97
Q

Ressurection

A
98
Q

Retrospective Data

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

A
99
Q

Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model of Rela Breakdown

A

adresses cog & behav
description not explanation- suggests all breakdowns = same
doesnt account for causual relas / friendships

100
Q

Fatal Attraction Hypothesis

A
101
Q

Akert (1998)

A

women - friends

102
Q

Moghaddam et al (1993)

A
103
Q

Evaluation Studies

A

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
Q

Rollie & Duck

A

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
Q

Dickson, 1995

A

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
Q

Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships

A
107
Q

Hyper Personal Model

A
108
Q

Cooper & Sportaria (1997)

A
109
Q

Reduced Cues Theory

Sproull & Keisler (1986)

A
110
Q

Bargh et al (2002)

A
111
Q

Yum & Hara

A
112
Q

Walther (1995)

A
113
Q

Walther (2011)

A
114
Q

Online & Offline Relationships

A
115
Q

Affects of an Absence of Gating

A
116
Q

Virtual Relationships Cultrally Biased

A
117
Q

McKenna & Bargh (2000)

A
118
Q

Entertainment Social

A
119
Q

Intense Personal

A
120
Q

Borderline Pathological

A
121
Q

Absorption Addition Model

A

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
Q

Maltby (2005)

A
123
Q

Maltby (2003)

A
124
Q

Schmid & Klimmit (2011)

A
125
Q

Attachment Theory Explanation

A

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
Q

Kienlen et al (1997)

A

63% of stalkers experience loss of primary caregiver
m than 50% exper abuse - sups idea that distrupted a patterns = related to PSRs

127
Q

Cole & Leets (1999)

A
128
Q

McCutcheon et al (2006)

A
129
Q

McCutcheon (2006)

A

Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions