Relationships

Question 1

Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

Question 2

Intersexual Selection

Question 3

Intrasexual Selection

Question 4

Anisogamy

Question 5

Fitness Indicators

Question 6

Sexual Dimorphism

Question 7

Clark & Hatfield (1989)

Question 8

Buss (1989)

Question 9

Dubar & Waynforth (1995)

Question 10

Face Validity of Partner Preferences

Question 11

Universality of Partner Preferences

Question 12

Singh Waste to Hip ratio

Question 13

Determinism of Partner Preferences

Question 14

Free Will in Partner Preferences

Question 15

Reductionism of Partner Preferences

Question 16

Chang (2011)

Question 17

Zahavi (1975)

Question 18

Berezkei et al (1997)

Question 19

Self Disclosure

Question 20

Social Penetration Theory

Altman & Taylor (1973)

Question 21

Reis & Shaver (1988)

Question 22

Sprecher & Hendrick (2004)

Question 23

Laurenceau et al (2005)

Question 24

Hass & Stafford (1998)

Question 25

Tang (2013)

Question 26

Correlation Vs Causation

Self Disclosure

Question 27

Gender Differences

Self Disclosure

Question 28

Halo Effect

Question 29

Thornhill & Gangsted (1993)

Answer 29

symetrical faces are more attractive
jaw line - good immune system

Question 30

Bruce & Young (1993)

Question 31

Matching Hypothesis

Walster

Question 32

Shackleford & Larson (1997)

Question 33

Aronson et al (1966)

Question 34

Palmer & Peterson (2012)

Question 35

Cross Cultures

Physical Attractivenss

Question 36

Walster (1966)

Question 37

Towhey (1979)

Question 38

Taylor et al (2011)

Question 39

Personality Factors

Question 40

Filter Theory 1.

Question 41

Filter Theory 2.

Question 42

Filter Theory 3.

Question 43

Proximity

Question 44

Physical Attractiveness

Filter Theory

Question 45

Similarity

Question 46

Complement

Question 47

Competent

Question 48

Kerckhoff & Davis (1962)

Question 49

Byrne (1997)

Question 50

Winch (1973)

Question 51

Self Report Issues

Filter Theory

Question 52

Online Dating

Filter Theory

Question 53

Direction of Causality

Filter Theory

Question 54

Filter Theory Evaluation

Question 55

Social Exchange Theory - Thibault & Kelly (1959)

Question 56

Kelly (1959)

Question 57

4 stage model

Question 58

Clark & Mills (1979)

Question 59

Kurdek (1995)

Question 60

Argyle (1987)

Question 61

Miller (1997)

Question 62

Moghadam et al (1993)

Question 63

Hatfield (1979)

Question 64

Social Exchange Theory Evaluation

Question 65

Mikula et al (1983)

Question 66

Gergen et al (1980)

Question 67

Equity Theory

Question 68

Walster (1979)

Answer 68

Profit
Distribution
Dissatisfaction
Realignment

Question 69

Kahn et al (1980)

Question 70

Stafford & Canary (2006)

Question 71

Unte et al (1984)

Question 72

Aumer-Ryan et al (2006)

Question 73

Van Yperen & Buunk et al (1990)

Answer 73

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.

Question 74

Equity Theory Evaluation

Question 75

Rusbault’s Investment Model

Question 76

Satisfaction

Question 77

Quality of Alternatives

Question 78

Investment

Question 79

Intrinsic investments

Question 80

Tangibles

Question 81

Intangibles

Question 82

Extrinsic investments

Question 83

Maintenance Mechanisms

Question 84

Rusbult (1983)

Question 85

Rhahgan & Axsom

Question 86

Jerstadt (2005)

Question 87

Le & Agnew (2003)

Question 88

Impett, Beals & Peplau (2002)

Question 89

Investment Model Positive Methodology

Question 90

Investment Model: Universal

Question 91

Investment Model = Simplistic & Reductionist

Question 92

Intra-psychic

Question 93

Dyadic

Question 94

Social Phase

Question 95

Gravedressing

Question 96

Useful Application of Duck’s Phase Model of Rela Breakdown

Question 97

Ressurection

Question 98

Retrospective Data

Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

Question 99

Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model of Rela Breakdown

Answer 99

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

Question 100

Fatal Attraction Hypothesis

Question 101

Akert (1998)

Answer 101

women - friends

Question 102

Moghaddam et al (1993)

Question 103

Evaluation Studies

Answer 103

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.

Question 104

Rollie & Duck

Answer 104

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

Question 105

Dickson, 1995

Answer 105

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

Question 106

Self Disclosure in Virtual Relationships

Question 107

Hyper Personal Model

Question 108

Cooper & Sportaria (1997)

Question 109

Reduced Cues Theory

Sproull & Keisler (1986)

Question 110

Bargh et al (2002)

Question 111

Yum & Hara

Question 112

Walther (1995)

Question 113

Walther (2011)

Question 114

Online & Offline Relationships

Question 115

Affects of an Absence of Gating

Question 116

Virtual Relationships Cultrally Biased

Question 117

McKenna & Bargh (2000)

Question 118

Entertainment Social

Question 119

Intense Personal

Question 120

Borderline Pathological

Question 121

Absorption Addition Model

Answer 121

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

Question 122

Maltby (2005)

Question 123

Maltby (2003)

Question 124

Schmid & Klimmit (2011)

Question 125

Attachment Theory Explanation

Answer 125

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

Question 126

Kienlen et al (1997)

Answer 126

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

Question 127

Cole & Leets (1999)

Question 128

McCutcheon et al (2006)

Question 129

McCutcheon (2006)