Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
Evo explanations for partner preferences
A
- Evolutionary theory states M n F differ in reproductive capabilities due to anisogamy
- M produce many mobile sperm n can fertilise Females at small cost but can’t be sure of paternity which results in intrasexual selection where they (M) compete w eachother for F
eg thru Mate-guarding (protecting mate from other M) - on other hand, F produce few large eggs (are released once a month) so are like a reproductive investment. As so, they are more selective of their mates n pick 1s w best characterstics (**Intersexual selection)
eg thru courtship -
Sexual selection are traits that increase one’s chances of reproductive success. Purpose of reproduction is to have strong heir.
eg M seek out F that show signs of fertility as M can reproduce many times over while F can’t
F seek out M that are genetically superior n resourceful as they can only reproduce few times
2
Q
evaluate evo explanation
A
Pros:
-
Research support
Buss 1989 conducted a study w 10k p(s) across 37 diff countries n found men prefer youthful/attractive women n women prefer ambitious/resourceful men.
Shows that evo explanation is useful when explaining partner preferences n is universally applicable to an extent
cons:
-
Reductionist
in that it assumes we only select partners according to our evolution eg men after hella women n women j want resources n both want kids. This not case n limitation as many things to consider when picking a partner as humans tho this maybe the case for animals. Weakens evo explanation as a full explanation as to why we pick partners -
Nomothetic
On that note, tries to est laws sayin we pick partners according to our evo eg men want many sexual partners. This is limitation as this not case eg according to evo explanation all couples want kids but then it wouldn’t be able to explain homosexual or long-distance couples rs(s). This means that tho it maybe generalisable to animals, for humans it cannot explain all relationships as we are v complex n instead idio approach should be taken to study why we pick ppl as partners
3
Q
Factors affecting attraction in romantic rs(s)
A
- self-disclosure
- physical attractiveness
- filter theory
4
Q
Self-disclosure
A
-
refers to sharing personal info about yourself to your romantic partner
eg thghts, feelings, experiences - Important at beginning of rs cos can indicate trust and lead to attraction/intimacy in romantic rs(s)
- research support comes from Altman n Taylor- social penetration theory which states appropriateness of disclosure important. Found that someone who discloses hella info on first date less likeable suggesting disclosure has to be gradual. Also found that has to be reciprocal cos leads to trust. This leads to em penetrating deeper into eachothers life n understanding eachother
- there’s diff factors affecting disclosure eg
gender
f tend to disclose more
content
what’s disclosed can influence attraction
5
Q
evaluate self-disclosure
A
pros:
-
Research support
Collins n Miller 2004 found ina meta-analysis that ppl rated those who made more personal disclosure as more attractive n likeable. Also found ppl made more disclosure to those they were attracted to. This shows self-disclosure is important in the initial attraction phase of romantic relationships
Cons
-
Reductionist
assumes that only self-disclosure is important in attraction in rs(s). This is limited as many other factors eg physical attractiveness or what a couple has in common is important. Shows the limitation of reductionism in explaining attraction n instead a holistic view would be better where you consider many diff factors affecting attraction -
Nomothetic
theory tries est general laws stating self-disclosure is key to attraction. While this maybe true in some cases, it’s not applicable to all cases eg
lvl of disclosure is diff across cultures. It was found in USA (individualistic) couples share more sexual thoughts, feelings n experiences compared to China (collectivist).
important bcz shows cultural differences in self-disclosure and shows cultural relativism is apparent as self-disclosure is not seen as important in all cultures. Shows idiographic approach needed to understand diff cases of how attraction in couples form
6
Q
Physical attractiveness
A
- often what initially draws couples together n can immediately signal if ppl wish to get to know eachother
- what’s seen as physically attractive differs amongst ppl so is subjective. From evo pov, men n women have similarities in what they find attractive eg men like youthful.
Halo effect states that we associate pos characteristics w
those we find physically attractive which makes em seem like desirable partners - Walster et al 1966- Matching Hypothesis states that we attracted to those on similar lvl of attractiveness as us. n B4 approaching a potential partner, we compare our lvls of attractiveness. This is to avoid rejection n feelings of insecurity within a rs
7
Q
evaluate physical attractiveness
A
pros
-
Research support
MH has research support as walster n walster 1969 told students they were matched by a computer programme when they were acc matched randomly. They found that students who were matched on physical attractiveness rated each other more favourably than those mismatched. This shows support for MH theory n suggests that we go for n attracted to ppl of similar lvl of physical attractiveness
cons
-
Reductionist
In that it assumes only physical attractiveness n similar lvls of it, is what attracts us to a person when this not case. Limited cos humans are complex n other factors eg self-disclosure or what we have in common has a major impact in who we select as partners. Tho physical attractiveness may have some role in our attraction to a person, as mentioned, many other factors play a part too so this weakens MH. -
Nomothetic
MH tries to generalise that we go for those of similar lvl
of attractiveness when selecting partner when this not case all the time.
Eg in cultures where arranged marriage is popular, families often match couples on factors such as , social class or wealth, and not physical attractiveness as much. similarly, doesn’t explain why there’s couples where older unattractive males are w youthful attractive females. This shows the limitation of MH in explaining attraction in romantic rs n instead idio approach looking at each couple individually would be more credible as humans are too complex n diff to generalise one law to
8
Q
Filter theory
A
proposed by Kerckhoff n Davis. stated that we use filters when selecting a romantic partner n these narrow down all the potential ‘availables’:
-
Social demographics
refers to proximity as we will be attracted to those who are close to us
eg those who live closest to us, same skl, clubs, work etc
and also those who are in same social class -
Similarity in attitudes
more likely to be attracted to those who share things in common w us eg beliefs, goals, values
eg friendships often start when you find they’ve suin similar -
Complimentarity
refers to whether the person can fulfil our needs. Eg one person wants to be cared for n the other likes caring for them
When partners complement each other one usually has a trait the other lacks so this can then make em feel complete
9
Q
Evaluate filter theory
A
Pros
-
Research support
Festinger et al 1950 found students that lived in the same building were more likely to develop friendships. This shows that physical proximity increased the likelihood of eachother and can explain the formation of relationships, thus supporting the filter theory
cons:
-
Reductionist/Temporal validity
fails to explain modern age where online dating has increased dramatically eg Tinder allows you to connect to ppl v far away. This weakens extent to such filter theory can explain rs as the idea of proximity is contradicted n shows that we can form rs w ppl who are far, thus reducing usefulness of it in explaining modern rs -
Nomothetic
Tries to est general laws in saying we all use filters when forming relationships when this not case
eg
In arranged marriage, ppl often let their parents select for them which often leads to marrying ppl from different countries. This shows again that proximity isn’t an important factor in relationships. Further can be criticised of cultural relativism as it assumes this is the case in eastern cultures where parents often select their children’s partners. Weakens filter theory n shows instead idio approach should be taken when studying relationships n each couple should be studied individually to get a better understanding of attraction in relationships
10
Q
Maintaining relationships
A
- social exchange theory
- equity theory
- Rusbult’s investment model of commitment
Breakdown of rs:
- Duck’s phase model of rs breakdown
11
Q
Social exchange theory
A
proposed by Thibault n Kelley
Social exchanges
- claims rs are series of exchanges bw ppl and maintenance is based onna cost-benefit analysis that we do like economic exchanges.
- rewards could include things like sex, dates, gifts etc
- costs could be arguments, time away from family, emotional harm
- if rewards excess costs then rs is maintained
Comparisons lvls:
- according to SET, partners will regularly assess their costs n benefits to determine satisfaction lvls
- and we use Comparison levels (CL) to determine if rs is profitable enough for us (compare to other ppls rs or past rs)
- 2nd measure is Comparison levels of Alternative (CLalt) look at benefits may gain from available alternative rs
12
Q
evaluate SET
A
Pros:
-
Irl app
Christensen et al found in couples therapy, therapists encourage em to increase pos exchanges n decrease neg one’s and this improved 2/3 of couple rs. This supports SET n shows it can be used to help n maintain rs
cons
-
Reductionist
assumes all relationships involve a cost benefit analysis for maintenance. Limited cos this not case as ignores other factors eg help of family or even just love. Humans are complex and not everyone in selfish eg some partners enjoy giving more than they receive and for them this would be a benefit. Shows SET limited explanation of how rs maintained n can’t explain all cases. Instead holistic view should be taken where they consider alt factors keeping rs stable -
Nomothetic
on this note, tries to est general laws saying all couples use cost benefit analysis to maintain rs. This is flawed as every couple diff n idio approach would be more suitable as every couples diff. It would also be more suitable to instead assume that couples want to ensure their rs is equitable instead of a cost benefit analysis so equity theory more realistic at looking at maintenance
13
Q
Equity theory
A
- walster et al 1978 adapted SET to equity theory
- it states that rs doesn’t rely on equality to continue rather it relies on fairness in terms of what we put in n what we get out of it
- Walster suggests that as long as each partner puts n receives fair ratio, rs will continue
- if either partner feels they giving more than receive or vice versa, then satisfaction lvls decrease n maintenance of rs in danger
Walster claimed there’s 4 principles to equity:
-
Profit:
both partners seek to maximise benefits -
Distribution
partners will negotiate to make sure rs is fair -
Distress
unfair rs produce’s dissatisfaction n more unfair= more dissatisfaction -
Restoring balance
when inequity detected,
partners will feel motivated to restore balance
14
Q
Evaluate equity theory
A
Pros
-
Research support
Stafford n Canary 2006 asked married couples to complete surveys on rs satisfaction. Found couples that had equitable rs most satisfied opposed to those in inequitable rs. Supports idea equity increases likelihood of rs maintenance
Cons
-
Cultural relativism
Research found equity is more favoured in US whereas other cultures preferred equality. Also some cultures have traditions that one partner should benefit from rs more than others which therefore shows that equity theory not universally applicable which weakens idea that it’s needed for rs maintenance -
Nomothetic
on this note, tries to est general laws to explain maintenance of all rs not possible as reasons for maintenance differs amongst ppl. Instead idio approach better to truly understand reasons why n how ppl maintain rs
15
Q
Rusbults investment model of commitment
A
theory considers factors associated w commitment in romantic rs n states we more likely to stay in rs we invested in eg money for house, or kids etc
3 important factors:
-
Satisfaction
refers to if we think our needs are being fulfilled. If yes, Rusbults beloved then more likely to stay in rs -
Quality of alts
depends on alts available to us n if they seem worth it. Can explain why ppl stay in unhappy rs if there’s no other options -
Investment
refers to how much have we put into rs eg time, effort, money, kids. Less likely to leave if we put a lot into n can explain why ppl stay together eg for their kids
