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 Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Sexual selection

A

An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.

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

Examples of traits that provide advantages for mating in humans

A

Aggression, greater height, certain facial and bodily features

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

Anisogamy

A

Refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)

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

Males (sperm)

A
  • Many (millions)
  • Small in size
  • Energetically cheap
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Females (eggs)

A
  • Relatively few
  • Large in size
  • Energetically expensive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Intersexual selection

A

Between the sexes, the strategies that males use to select females or females use to select males (the preferred strategy of the female - quality over quantity)

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

Which sex is choosier?

A

Women

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

What do females typically choose in evolutionary theory?

A

A partner who can offer resources, who has money status and ambition

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

An example of the runaway process

A

If height is a male trait then, over successive generations of females, it would increase in the male population because females would mate with tall males, and over time, produce sons who are taller with each generation and produce daughters who have a greater preference for tall partners.

This may result in a feature becoming exaggerated over many generations.

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

Sexy sons hypothesis

A

Where a female mates with a male who has desirable characteristics, and this ‘sexy’ trait is inherited by her son. This increases the likelihood that successive generations of females will mate with her offspring

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

Intrasexual selection

A

Within each sex - such as the strategies between males to be the one that is selected (this is the preferred strategy of males - quantity over quality)

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

Dimorphism

A

The obvious differences between males and females

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

Which strategy gives rise to dimorphism?

A

Competition between males where the victor reproduces and gets to pass on his winning characteristics to the offspring

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

The optimum reproductive strategy for males

A

To mate with as many fertile females as possible. This is because of the minimal energy to produce sperm and the relative lack of post-coital responsibility

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

Buss (1989)

A
  • Carried out a survey of 10,00 adults in 33 countries (cross-cultural)
  • He asked questions regarding a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference
  • Females placed more value on resources than males e.g. money/ambition
  • Males valued physical attractiveness and youth (good reproductive capacity) more than females
  • This highlights a difference in preferences between sexes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Clark and Hatfield (1989)

A
  • Male and female psychology students individually approached other students asking the question ‘Hi I’ve been noticing you around campus and I find you very attractive’
    Would you go on a date with me?
    Would you go back to my apartment?
    Would you have sex with me?
  • 75% of males said yes to the last question compared to 0% of females
  • This supports the view that women are choosier than men
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Other factors influencing mate preferences aside from evolutionary explanations

A
  • Cultural factors such as the availability of contraception
  • Women’s greater role in the workplace means that they do not need to depend on men for their resources
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Chang (2011)

A
  • Compared partner preferences in China over 25 years - some stayed the same and some changed
  • Shows that mate preferences are a combination between cultural and evolutionary influences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Support form waist-hip ratio (WHR)

A
  • Males show preference to a female with a body shape that indicates good fertility
  • Singh (1993, 2002) studied this in terms of WHR
  • Men generally find any hip and waist size attractive as long as the ration from one to the other are about 0.7
  • Wider hips, narrow waist - says that a woman is fertile but not pregnant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Support from lonely hearts adverts

A
  • Wayneforth and Dunbar studied lonely hearts advertisements in American newspapers
  • The researchers found that women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth (flirty, sexy, curvy, exciting)
  • Men offered resources more than women (successful, fit, mature, ambitious) and sought relative youth and physical attractiveness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Self-disclosure

A
  • Revealing personal information about yourself
  • Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops
  • These revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately and builds trust
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory (1973)

A
  • Self-disclosure is the main concept
  • Focuses on how relationships develop
  • Relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone - they are a reciprocal exchange
  • As each partner increasingly reveals more information about one another, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

6 levels involved in social penetration theory

A

1) Biographical data (age, gender, name)
2) Preference in clothes, food and music
3) Goals and aspirations
4) Religious convictions
5) Deeply held fears and fantasies
6) Concept of self

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

Breadth and depth

A
  • Use the onion layers to explain this
  • As both breadth and depth increases, romantic partners become more committed to one another
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

When is low risk information revealed in a relationship?

A

Early on

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

When is high risk information revealed in a relationship?

A

As the relationship develops

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

An example of low risk information

A

Favourite colour

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

Examples of high risk information

A

Political views
Painful memories and experiences

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

Reis and Shaver (1988) Reciprocity of self-disclosure

A
  • For a relationship to develop, as well as increase in breadth and depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
  • There must be a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful romantic relationship
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Sprecher and Hendrick (2004)

A
  • Studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong positive correlations between several measures of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Limitations - Sprecher and Hendrick (2004)

A
  • As it is a correlational study, it doesn’t show causation
  • Not representative as as it only studied heterosexual couples
  • Social desirability bias
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Laurenceau (2005)

A
  • Used a method that involved writing daily diary entries
  • Found that self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples.
  • This supportive evidence increases the validity of the theory that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Real life application - self-disclosure

A
  • Research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships
  • Romantic partners probably use self disclosure deliberately and skilfully to increase intimacy and strengthen the bond
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Hass and Stafford (1998)

A
  • Found that 57% of gay men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Tang et al (2013)

A
  • Reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men/women in USA disclose significantly more than men/women in China (collectivist vs individualist cultures)
  • Self-disclosure is not a universal theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Self-disclosure and satisfaction

A
  • Theories of relationship breakdown often recognise how couple discuss and negotiate the state of their deteriorating relationships in an attempt to save it or return it to an earlier level of satisfaction
  • This goes against self-disclosure theory as sometimes self-disclosing about intimate thoughts (e.g. why you don’t like them) will lead to a weakening of a relationship not strengthening
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

The importance of physical attractiveness - evolutionary explanations

A
  • Evolutionary explanations of attractiveness state that traits associated with attractiveness act as indications of good health
  • Choosing an attractive partner is the best way of ensuring a healthy partner and a healthy child
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Baby face hypothesis

A
  • Adults may have evolved a preference for baby features because this ensures that we care for our young and for this reason, features elicit attraction
  • If they are younger, they are more likely to be able to have children
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Facial symmetry is…

A

Attractive

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

McNulty (2008)

A

Found evidence that the initial attractiveness that brought the partners together continued to be an important feature of the relationship after the marriage, for at least several years.

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

The Halo Effect

A

Describes how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness in this case) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s attributes.

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

Dion (1972)

A

Found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people

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

Palmer and Peterson (2012)

A
  • Research to support to Halo Effect
  • Found that physical attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people
  • The Halo Effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Towhey (1979)

A
  • Gave males and females a set of photos and biographical information about people and asked them to judge how much they would like a target individual based on the photograph
  • Participants also completed a questionnaire (the MACHO scale) designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

People who scored highly on the MACHO scale were…

A

Significantly more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgements of likeability

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

Low scorers on the MACHO scale were…

A

less influenced or not influenced by physical attractiveness when making their judgements

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

An example of why the Halo Effect can be dangerous

A

There are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters

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

The Matching Hypothesis

A
  • The matching hypothesis in psychology argues that people are more likely to form and succeed in a committed relationship with someone who is equally socially desirable, typically in terms of physical attraction.
  • People choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar attractiveness to each other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Feingold (1988)

A
  • Research supporting the matching hypothesis
  • After carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies, found a correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners
  • This is especially supportive of the matching hypothesis as the studies looked at actual partners which is a more realistic approach
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Computer dance study (Walster, 1966)

A
  • Research contradicting the matching hypothesis
  • 752 students bought welcome week tickets for a computer dance
  • When they bought the tickets they were told that information they gave about themselves would be fed into a computer and this would provide an ‘ideal match’ date
  • In fact they were randomly assigned any partner
  • When students were giving their data (when they booked their ticket) an unseen observer marked them on attractiveness
  • After spending two hours with dates, students were asked how much they liked their partner
  • Those who were physically attractive were liked the most. Men asked out a partner if they found her attractive, regardless of how attractive they were themselves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Taylor (2011)

A
  • Research contradicting the matching hypothesis
  • Studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site
  • This was a real life test of the matching hypothesis because it measured actual date choices rather than preferences - this is keeping in line with the original hypothesis which concerned realistic as opposed to fantasy choices
  • Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more attractive than them. It seems they did not consider their own level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Cunningham (1995)

A
  • Found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, high eyebrows were as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asain males
  • What is considered attractive is universal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Wheeler and Kim (1997)

A
  • Found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly
  • The stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Filter theory

A

Filter theory is an explanation of attraction proposed by Kerchoff and Davies (1962). This theory suggests that people develop relationships by applying a series of filters, such as similarity of social demographic factors and attitudes and complementarity of needs to narrow down the pool of available candidates.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

The order of the 5 filters in filter theory

A

1) Proximity
2) Physical attraction
3) Similarity
4) Complementarity
5) Competence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Proximity filter

A

Most people will form a relationship with people close to them geographically. This is mainly due to chance that they will meet, speak or generally become aware of one another. The key benefit of proximity is accessibility.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Similarity filter

A

Most people will come into contact with people from the same social or cultural background. This can also be the case for internal characteristics such as attitudes or personality traits.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

In what stage of the relationship is similarity of attitudes most important?

A

Similarity is most important in the development of romantic relationships for couples who had been together less than 18 months (Kerckhoff and Davis (1962))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Byrne (1997)

A

Has consistent finding that similarity causes attraction as the law of attraction. If such similarity does not exist it turns out partners have very little in common.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Physical attraction in terms of filter theory

A

How good looking someone is has been found to be one of the most important factors in initial relationship formation, as well as longer lasting relationship.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Complementarity filter

A

Not all personality characteristics need to be the same. We tend to be attracted to people who can give us what we lack. This filter concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each others needs’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

When is the need for complementarity more important? (Kerckhoff and Davis)

A

For long term couples

63
Q

Competence

A

How intelligent and competent one appears can be influential in how attractive they are

64
Q

Festinger et al (1950)

A
  • Supporting evidence for filter theory
  • Observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments for married students
  • Students lived across17 buildings
  • Students were 10x as likely to form a friendship with people who lived in their own building
  • The most popular people lived nearest to the staircases and post boxes because they were more likely to be ‘bumped’ into
  • This is called functional distance
  • Supports the proximity filter
65
Q

Aronson et al (1966)

A
  • Using audio tapes they asked subjects to evaluate the attractiveness of four candidates being interviewed for a famous quiz show
  • First one was nearly perfect, he answered 92% of the questions correctly, was an honours student in high school, editor of the year book and member of the track team
  • Second one was nearly perfect too but spilt coffee on himself during the interview
  • Third one was mediocre, he answered 30% of the questions correctly, average grades in high school and a proof reader for the yearbook
  • Fourth was also mediocre, and also spilt coffee
  • Order of attractiveness was 2,1,3,4
  • We like competent people but not too perfect
66
Q

Walster et al (1966) (Evaluation for filter theory)

A
  • Computer dance study
  • As attractiveness was the most important factor in liking this supports the physical attractiveness filter
67
Q

Levinger (1974) Limitation of filter theory

A
  • Pointed out that many studies failed to replicate findings that formed the basis of the original filter theory
  • He put this down to social changes over time and also the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship in terms of its length
  • Kerchoff and Davis chose and 18 month cut off point to distinguish between a short term and ling term relationship
  • What is considered a short term and long term relationships differs by age
  • It is assumed that partners who have been together longer have a more committed and had a deeper relationship
68
Q

Direction of cause and effect

A
  • Filter theory suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar but there is evidence that suggests that this direction of causality is wrong
69
Q

Anderson (2003)

A
  • Found in a longitudinal study that cohabitating partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon they called emotional convergence
  • This is not predicted by filter theory
70
Q

Davis and Rusbult (2001)

A
  • Discovered an attitude alignment effect on long term relationships
  • Romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other’s
  • This suggests that similarity is an effect of initial attraction and not the cause
71
Q

Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut and Kelly (1959))

A
  • An ‘economic’ theory - relationships are run in a similar way to a business, negotiating to get the best deal
  • Based on the principles of operant conditioning which suggests we form relationships because they are rewarding, meaning they are profitable
  • If the costs outweigh the benefits then the relationship will end
  • Satisfaction depends on the outcome (not the cost or the reward)
72
Q

Social Exchange Theory equation

A

The rewards of a relationship - The costs of a relationship = outcome

73
Q

Comparison level

A

The amount of reward you believe you deserve

74
Q

What is our comparison level based on?

A

Based on our experiences plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange. We can use culture to inform our comparison level.

75
Q

What happens if we judge the potential profit of a new relationship to exceed our CL?

A

The relationship will be judged as worthwhile

76
Q

A comparison level for alternatives

A

We weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a potential partner, minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship

77
Q

4 stages of SET

A

Sampling
Bargaining
Commitment
Institutionalisation

78
Q

Sampling

A

The couple explores rewards and costs in a variety of relationships (not just romantic ones) or observe others doing so

79
Q

Bargaining

A

The couple negotiates the relationship and agrees the rewards and costs. This marks the start of the relationship where partners start to exchange.

80
Q

Commitment

A

The couple settles into the relationship and agrees the exchange of reward becomes fairly predictable. Stability increases as rewards increase and costs lessen

81
Q

Institutionalisation

A

Norms and expectations are firmly established settled down

82
Q

Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

A
  • It assumes that people are inherently selfish in relationships by trying to maximise their rewards while minimising the costs
  • SET does not take equity into consideration
  • It is difficult to quantify what ‘rewards’ and ‘costs’ are as they are subjective and unique to each person
  • Supporting evidence uses artificial tasks in artificial conditions e.g. one common procedure involves two strangers working together on a game playing scenario in which rewards and costs are distributed. The two partners know nothing about one another and their so called ‘relationship’ depends entirely on the task they are performing together (snapshot studies)
  • Many researchers do not accept the economic metaphor underlying SET
83
Q

Hattfield (1979) SET

A
  • Questioned newly weds about their level of contentment in their marriage
  • Social exchange theory states that the happiest people should be those who over benefit
  • It was found that the happiest people were those who felt that the marriage was equal for both partners in terms of costs and benefits
84
Q

Clark and Mills (2011) SET

A
  • The theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship
  • They suggest that exchange relationships (e.g. work colleagues) do involve social exchanges as the SET predicts.
  • However communal relationships (e.g. romantic partners) are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score of who is behind
85
Q

Equity theory

A

Another economic theory, which was developed in response to a significant criticism of the social exchange theory

86
Q

What does Walster state that matters most with equity?

A

That both partners level of profit are roughly the same.
Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity

87
Q

Inequity

A

When one person gives a great deal and gets little in return

88
Q

4 parts of the process of equity

A

Profit
Distribution
Dissatisfaction
Realignment

89
Q

Profit

A

Rewards and maximised and costs are minimised

90
Q

Distribution

A

Trade-offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship

91
Q

Dissatisfaction

A

The greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the sense of dissatisfaction

92
Q

Realignment

A

If restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue to realign the relationship

93
Q

Dealing with inequity

A

Behavioural - put in less/more
Behavioural - Change the amount you demand from it

94
Q

Changes in perceived equity

A

Cognitive - change perception of rewards/costs e.g. change a cost (untidiness, thoughtlessness, abuse) into a norm

95
Q

Hatfield (1989) Supporting evidence for equity theory

A

Hatfield looked for people who felt over or under-benefited felt angry and deprived, while the over-benefited felt guilty and uncomfortable

96
Q

Moghaddam (1998)

A
  • Suggests that such ‘economic’ theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility
  • One group of people who fit this description are students in Western societies as they are typically very mobile and experience many short-term romantic relationships.
  • Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment, it makes sense to be concerned with give-and-take
  • However, long-term relationships within other less mobile population groups are more likely to value security than personal profile profit
97
Q

Individual differences (equity theory)

A

Not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman (1987) suggest that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. They are separated into two types of people: benevolents and entitleds

98
Q

Benevolents

A

Those who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it

99
Q

Entitled

A

Those who believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty

100
Q

Factors that commitment of a relationship depends on (Rusbult (2011) Investment model)

A
  • Satisfaction level
  • Comparison with alternatives
  • Investment size
101
Q

Investments can be…

A

Tangible or intangible

102
Q

Investment

A

(Defined by Rusbult) - Anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it. This may include things such as possessions, children’s welfare and emotional energy

103
Q

Intrinsic investment

A

Time, money, personal information (self disclosure), emotion, effort

What you are directly putting into a relationship

104
Q

Extrinsic investment

A

Things that are brought to people’s life through the relationship
Shared things that may be lost: shared pet, network of friends, children, shared memories (family time), joint possessions

105
Q

What does Rusbult argue that the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in a relationship?

A

Commitment, not satisfaction
This is important as it can help explain why dissatisfied partners will stay in a relationship

106
Q

Why are people so committed in a relationship?

A

They have made an investment that they don’t want to see go to waste so they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship

107
Q

Relationship maintenance mechanisms

A

Used to promote relationship maintenance when a partner is dissatisfied but it depends on how committed the partners are

Accommodation
Willingness to sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive illusions
Ridiculing alternatives

108
Q

Accommodation

A

Promoting the relationship

109
Q

Willingness to sacrifice

A

Putting their partners interests first

110
Q

Forgiveness

A

Forgive them for any serious offences

111
Q

Positive illusions

A

Convincing yourself that they will change. Being unrealistically positive about their partner to their face and to others

112
Q

Supporting research evidence (Investment model)

A
  • Rusbult asked college students in heterosexual relationships to complete questionnaires over a 7 month period
  • They kept notes on how satisfactory their relationship was, how it compared with others and how much they had invested in it
  • Students also noted how committed they felt to the relationship and whether it had ended
  • Found that the more invested you are, the less likely you are to leave
113
Q

Follow up studies on the investment model

A

Found that outcomes regarding investment and commitment were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual relationships
This means the investment theory is universal

114
Q

Evaluation point for investment model - Abusive relationships

A
  • The investment model is thought to be particularly valid and a useful explanation of relationships involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
  • On average people experience 33 cases of violent assault before they leave their partner
  • This could link to the mechanism of positive illusions - people may think their partner is going to change
115
Q

Rusbult and Martz (1995)

A
  • Applied the investment model to abusive relationships
  • They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began
  • As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great
116
Q

Rhahgan and Axom

A

Studied a group of women living in a refuge and found that each of the three strands of the investment model (satisfaction, comparison level alternatives, investments) contributed to women staying with their partner

117
Q

Jerstad (2005)

A

Found that investments (time and effort) were the most important predictor of whether to stay with a violent partner

118
Q

Methological strengths of the investment model

A
  • Relies on self-report methods such as interviews and questionnaires
  • Generally these methods would be a weakness but in this instance they are the most appropriate methods to use because it’s not the objective reality of factors that matter. What matters is the individual partner’s perception of these factors
119
Q

Correlational research - Investment model evaluation

A
  • Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model
  • However, even the strongest correlation is no evidence of causation
  • Most studies don’t actually allow us to conclude that any of the factors actually cause commitment in a relationship
  • It could be the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship
120
Q

Duck’s stages of relationship breakdown

A

1) Intra psychic phase
2) Dyadic phase
3) Social processes
4) Grave dressing

121
Q

Intra psychic phase

A
  • Personal brooding
  • One of the partners becomes more and more dissatisfied with the relationship
  • They do not tell their partner yet
  • Resentment
  • Re-evaluation of alternatives
122
Q

Dyadic phase

A
  • Discussion with partner
  • The other person becomes involved
  • If the dissatisfaction is not acceptably resolved, there is progression to the next phase
  • Complaints/discussion of equity
123
Q

Social processes

A
  • Going public
  • Building alliances
  • Seeking support from others
  • Inevitable
  • Denigration of partner
  • Social implications (such as care of children) are negotiated
124
Q

Grave dressing

A
  • Here the ex-partners begin the organisation of their post-relationship lives
  • They begin publicising their own accounts of the breakdown and what (if any) is the nature of the new relationship with the ex-partner
  • Partners who develop their own versions of where the blame for breakdown actually lies, frequently employ self-serving attributional bias i.e. the failure of a relationship was out of their control
  • Stories prepared for different audiences
  • Saving face
125
Q

Evaluation of Duck’s stages of relationship breakdown (personal growth)

A
  • The model is criticised for being too simple
  • It failed to acknowledge the personal growth that could occur after a relationship ended
  • In a later model (Rollie and Duck 2006) the stage of resurrection was introduced after grave dressing to account for the period after a relationship ends where an individual engages in a process of personal growth
  • In this stage, ex-partners turn attention to the future and using their experiences from the relationship to create something better
  • Rollie and Duck also acknowledged that moving from one stage to the next was not inevitable
126
Q

Evaluation of Duck’s stages of relationship breakdown (practical applications)

A
  • The model can be useful for helping couples mend a relationships
  • Duck said that during the intra-psychic phase if individuals focused on positive aspects of their partner and improve their communication skills during the dyadic phase this could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship
  • These insights can be used by relationship counsellors
127
Q

Evaluation of Duck’s stages of relationship breakdown (description)

A
  • The model is more of a description than an explanation
  • It does not focus on why the relationship is ending
  • Diane Flemlees fatal attraction hypothesis is more successful at explaining why a relationship ends - it’s because of the qualities that first brought them together
128
Q

Evaluation of Duck’s stages of relationship breakdown (cultural bias)

A
  • Culture bias
  • Moghaddam (1983) - differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures - In individualistic cultures relationships are voluntary so divorce is more common whereas in collectivist cultures relationships are sometimes involuntary so may be more difficult to end
  • The social stage may happen sooner in collectivist cultures with discussion with family taking place even before discussion with a partner
  • Suggests a beta bias which has oversimplified the process of breakdown due to the use of an etic approach by researchers
129
Q

Absence of paralanguage

A
  • Body language can convey great meaning. Online there is an absence of these non-verbal cues (e.g. body posture, eye gaze, smile)
  • There is counterargument that non-verbal communication exists in the form of emojis, GIFs and on the phone with pauses and tone of voice
130
Q

Reduced Cues Theory Sproull and Kiesler (1986)

A
  • Cues such as physical appearance or cue to our emotional state (e.g. facial expressions) are lacking in CMC
  • This can lead to person losing their identity and acting in a way they wouldn’t normally. This is known as de-individuation which leads to dis inhibition
  • Often CMC involves aggressive and blunt communication with leads to reluctance in self disclosure
131
Q

The Hyper Personal Model Walther (1996)

A
  • CMC relationships are more personal and have greater self disclosure than face to face
  • CMC relationships can develop very quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier so they become more intense and intimate (anonymity increases SD - Bargh - strangers on a train effect)
  • They can also end quicker because the underlying trust and knowledge of the other person is lacking
  • Boom and bust
132
Q

Gate

A

Any obstacle that may interfere with the development of a relationship (face to face)

133
Q

Examples of gates

A
  • Stumbling over words
  • Appearance
  • Shyness
  • Social anxiety
134
Q

Why are online relationships said to be less superficial than face to face ones?

A

As there are no gates - purely based on personality than appearance

135
Q

Why might the absence of gating in online relationships potentially be a concern?

A

The absence of gating also means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage face to face

136
Q

Mckenna and Bargh (1999)

A

CMC relationship can develop to a point where self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper

137
Q

Lack of support for reduced cues theory

A
  • The theory is wrong to suggest that non-verbal cues are entirely missing from CMC
  • Joseph Walther and Lisa Tidwell (1995) point out that people in online interactions use others cues such as style and timing of messages
  • This goes against the reduced cues theory because it shows that not all non-verbal cues are absent in CMC
138
Q

Research support for the hyper personal model

A
  • The theory proposes that people are motivated to present themselves in a ‘hyperhonest’ way
  • Questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. This differs from small talk in face to face conversation
139
Q

Types of CMC differ, and therefore so does self-disclosure

A

The theories over-simplify self-disclosure online because they assume that all CMC platforms are the same.

E.g. On Facebook people are generally older and share photos and basic information however online dating is more intimate. Even among different online dating platforms there is a lot of variation. Tinder is potentially aimed at shorter term/casual relationship so may contain different information than match.com e.g. more photos

140
Q

Support for absence of gating

A
  • Mckenna and Bargh (2000) - study of CMC use by those who were socially anxious and/or lonely
  • They were able to express themselves more online
  • 70% of online relationships survived at least 2 years
  • This is much higher than relationships for shy people in the offline world (49% in a study by Kirkpatrick and Davis 1994)
141
Q

Who has parasocial relationships?

A

Mostly young people of secondary school age (11-17)
There is a negative correlation between involvement in parasocial relationships and educational attainment

142
Q

Gender difference in field of interest for parasocial relationships

A

Boys - field of sport
Girls - field of entertainment

143
Q

Similarities between real relationships and parasocial relationships

A
  • Voluntary (people choose to enter them)
  • Based on attraction to another person
  • Provide a sense of companionship
144
Q

Levels of parasocial relationships

A

The level of a parasocial relationship can be measured by a psychometric test developed by McCutcheon (2002) - the ‘Celebrity attitude scale’. There are 3 sub-scales which measure 3 different levels of parasocial relationships:
1) Entertainment-social
2) Intense-personal
3) Border-line pathological

Giles and Maltby described how a person can progress through these levels within the addiction-absorption model

145
Q

Entertainment-social

A

Attraction based on keen interest, and social aspects, e.g. discussing media personalities with friends/colleagues

146
Q

Intense-personal

A

Strong emotions towards celebrity, sense of connection, beginnings of obsession e.g. feeling like ‘soul mates’

147
Q

Border-line pathological

A

Uncontrollable feelings and behaviours: obsessive fantasies, which may become divorced from reality, and can prevent the person from living a normal life

148
Q

The absorption-addiction model

A
  • Describes a situation where an individual’s fascination with a media personality progresses to a delusion of a real relationship - model proposed by McCutcheon
  • A ‘delusion’ is a false belief that continues to be held despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument
  • This is based on the idea that a person feels inadequate in some way, and so hopes to ‘absorb’ some of what they lack (e.g. skill, beauty, success) from the celebrity they admire
  • Later this intense parasocial relationship becomes addictive
  • This results in extreme behaviour, signs of mental illness and/or criminal behaviour, e.g. celebrity stalking, which may include the delusion of genuinely being intimately involved with the celebrity
149
Q

Attachment theory and parasocial relationships

A
  • Parasocial relationships form because of childhood attachment difficulties
  • Secure least likely to form a parasocial relationship
  • Insecure resistant is most likely to form parascocial relationships as there is no risk of rejection/disappointment because the relationship is one-sided
  • Insecure avoidant prefer to avoid the pain of any type of relationship
150
Q

Support for absorption addiction model

A
  • It shows that it is often teenagers who become keenly interested in celebrities, at a time when they are looking for direction in life and are forming their self-identity
  • Research also shows that this interest can develop into addiction at a time of crisis, such as the loss of a loved one. This further supports the idea that a parasocial relationship can fill a gap in life
  • Melroy (1998) has supported the compensatory explanation with his research into stalkers
  • He found that stalkers suffer from social incompetence, isolation and loneliness, and have a history of failed sexual relationships
151
Q

Support for the absorption addiction model (Maltby)

A
  • Maltby et al. (2003-4) have also linked personality factors to level of involvement in parasocial relationships
  • Using Eysenck’s personality tests, they found that those at the…
    – Entertainment-social level …were extravert and mentally healthy
    – Intense-emotional level or above …were neurotic, unstable and prone to poor mental and physical health
  • This type of research is useful as it can help to develop therapies for pathological obsessions and stalking behaviour, e.g…
    – talking therapies to address underlying psychological causes
    – medications to target obsessive symptoms
152
Q

Problems with correlational research (Parasocial relationships)

A
  • There’s strong correlations between celebrity worship and body image.
  • But the conclusion that a strong parasocial relationship CAUSES young women to have a poor body image does not follow
  • It may be the reverse
153
Q

Cross-cultural support for parascoial relationships

A
  • Schmid and Klimmt (2011)
  • Studied parasocial attachment to Harry Potter
  • Levels were similar in Germany (individualist) and Mexico
    (collectivist)
  • Used an online questionnaire which leads to a lack of internal validity due to social desirability bias

Psychology (17 decks)

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