Relationships Flashcards
what is inter sexual selection?
Members of one biological sex choose mates of opposite sex, this causes attractive traits to survive
what is the evolutionary theory of sexual selection?
Purpose of attraction is to maximise on passing on genes
So, people are attracted to those that will increase reproductive success
Evolutionary theory predicts difference in mate choice between genders, as men and women face different evolutionary pressures in E E A
Men/women have different partner preferences due to biological differences.
biological differences between males and females?
females Low potential reproductive rate because:
Produce few large/energy rich eggs
Only fertile for 72 hours per month
Fertile from puberty lo menopause
Have to endure pregnancy/lactation
Max 1 offspring per 2 years.
characteristics prefered by males?
-young, fertile women
-symmetrical face
-not choosy (bad choice isn’t costly)
characteristics preferred by females?
-resources
-ambition/intelligence
-older males
-cost of bad choice is costly
what are 4 evaluation points?
+: nature more significant than nurture when choosing mate- studied 37 cultures, similar mate choices suggesting genetics rather than culture.
-: didn’t distinguish between preferences for long/short term relationships – Kenrick asked people to rank various attributes to 4 levels of intimacy.
- long-term: intelligence more important for men/women
- short-term: intelligence matters less especially for men
Findings to buss experiment not valid across all situations
-: evolutionary theory is reductionist – reduces social behaviour to sexual behaviour then reproductive strategy. Deemphasises role of other factors such as the culture.
-: evolutionary theory is deterministic – if biology determines Mate choices, then we have no choice about how respond to others. Biological determinism used as an excuse for unfaifulness in relationships
what is intra-sexual selection?
Competition within a sex.
Males compete with each other as females are more choosy; thus females become a limited resource, for which males must compete.
what is sperm competition?
In animals many males mate with each female, thus a female will have the sperm of several males in her reproductive tract at once.
Leads to selective pressure on males to increase number of sperm in each ejaculation so it can compete with rival sperm.
what are 3 evaluation points of intra-sexual selection?
-larger the testes size, the greater the competition.
-testes of humans are larger than gorillas (live in signal male harems), but smaller than chimpanzees (where females mate with many males).
-supports evolutionary theory- there has been intrasexual selection in past resulting in evolution of larger testes. Suggests females are more promiscuous than first suggested.
what is the importance of physical attractiveness?
Buss (evolutionary theory)- showed men in particular place great importance on phy. Attractiveness when choosing mate.
-evolutionary psychologists argue attractiveness is indicator of womens health/fertility.
-phy. Attractiveness less important for females in long-term relationship than short term.
what is a study supporting phy. attractiveness?
A: investigate wether there was sex differences in importance of phy. Attractiveness.
P: both partners in couple had attractiveness objectively rated at the start of study. Then asked to report material satisfaction 8 times over first 4 years of marriage.
F: objective ratings of wives attractiveness were + correlated to levels of husbands satisfaction. (True at start of marriage and next 4 years)
C: women find attractiveness less important as evolutionary theory suggests.
what is matching hypothesis?
People are attracted to those of similar attractiveness to themselves.
Although we want most attractive partner, the desire is balled by likelihood of rejection.
Neither partner would be comfortable with unequal matching in a relationship (insecurity)
Thus we settle for someone ‘in our league’.
what is contradictory evidence for matching hyp?
A: investigate if matching occurred in real life date choices.
P: studying activity log on dating site and identifying pairs of people that communicated with each other on the site.
F: website users more likely to arrange date with someone more attractive than them.
C: contradicts matching hypothesis, site users should settle for dates with people of same attractiveness to themselves- better chance of being accepted by partner.
what are 3 evaluation points for factors affecting attraction?
X- reductionist- theories emphasising importance of phy. Attractiveness = simplistic. Other factors involved in mate choice (personality).
X- individual differences in terms of importance of attractiveness- p’s asked to rate how much they liked person in a phot- phy. Attractiveness more important for p’s who had sexist attitude (measured by questionnaire). Phy. Attractiveness not important for everyone.
+: phy. Attractiveness important in forming relationships cross-culturally: white, Asian, Hispanic males despite being from different cultures rated females with small noses,large eyes, prominent cheekbones highly attractive.
Using attractiveness in choosing partner may be genetic. Biological not environmental.
what is self disclosure?
revealing personal info about yourself. Allows strengthening of bond.
what is the social penertration theory?
-gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone.
-reciprocal exchange of info between partners- one partner reveals personal info, displaying trust, to go further other partner must also reveal some personal info.
-eventually, romantic partners penetrate more deeply into each others lives.
what is the onion theory (breadth and depth)?
-breadth- ‘outer layer of onion’, revealing low risk info e.g., jobs, friends, childhood stories.
-if we reveal too much too soon, it may scare partner off.
-depth- happens over time (wider range of topics) personal, high risk info e.g.m, secrets.
as well as depth/ breadth, there needs to be reciprocity. Once you have disclosed something revealing you true self, partner should respond in rewarding/ empathetic way- leads to balance.
what are 4 evaluation points of self disclosure?
X: correlational- could be person in secure relationship can disclose more personal items, instead of disclosing items to make relationship secure. Can’t infer cause/ effect.
+: real life applications: hass and Stafford- 57% of gay men/women said self disclosure was main way they maintained/ deepened their relationship.
+:supporting research: sprecher and hendrick- strong + correlation between several measures of satisfaction/ disclosure among heterosexual couples.
+: valid: laurenceau et.al (diary entries)- self disclosure/ perception of self disclosure were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term married couples
what is the filter theory?
‘field of availabilities’- the possible people we could have a relationship with.
-we filter out different potential partners for different reasons at different times.
-narrowed down to ‘field of desirabilities’ (people we consider as potential partners)
what is the social demographic model?
exerts its influence without us realising. People tend to mix with others who are similar in several ways. E.g., live in similar areas, go to school together.
-people from different backgrounds are rarely encountered.
-leading to small selection of similar people.
-creating ‘field of desirables’
-in this stage, social demographics more important than phys. Attractiveness.
what is similarities of values?
if couples share ideas/ values, communication is easier, causing attraction, leading to relationship.
-however if they think differently, share few views about the world, its likely the relationship wont progress.
-people with different values/ attributes are filtered out.
what is complimentarity of emotional needs?
how well 2 people fit together and meet each others needs.
-people who have different needs like the need to be cared for and the need to care work as they compliment each other.
-give 2 partners feeling that they form a whole.
what are 4 evaluation points of filter theory?
X: validity- in recent years, online dating has increased, changing process of forming relationships, reducing importance of social demographic variables.
X: cause and effect- suggested people find each other attractive as they are similar. However, its found partners become similar over time (emotional convergence)
X: beta gender biased- ignores fact men/women use different filters (buss cross-cultural study)- men filter using phys. Attractiveness, females filter using wealth/ resources. Ignores how cross-cultural relationships are formed (cultural bias) e.g., arranged marriages.
+: kerchoff and Davis- longitudinal study, couples together for more/ less than 18 months
-complete several questionnaires over 7 month period, reporting on attitude/ personality similarity.
-attitude similarity important for up to 18 months in relationships.
-after this, ability to meet each others needs becomes more important.
what is social exchange theory?
Economic theory-based on idea that relationships are like marketplace ( seek best deal).
Trading exchanging commodities
Satisfying relationships = high rewards / low cost for both parties.
Profit:
Profit = reward-cost
Thibault + Kelly – believed individuals motivated to maximise reward and minimise cost to gain best profit.
Rewards / cost are subjective
Cost E.g. – effort, financial cost, missed opportunities
Reward E.g. – being cared for, sex
what is comparison level?
Standard that our relationships are judged against.
Our CL is a product of experience and general views of what we expect from this exchange could be based off of social norms, influenced by media.
CL change with experience.
If profit is less than cl, then we are dissatisfied with the relationship.
what is comparison level for alternatives?
Weighing up potential increase in rewards from a different partner against costs associated with current relationship.
New relationship can take place of current one if Profs level is higher.
when do relationships break down?
Rewards are low, costs are high
Profit is low, compared to comparison level
Profit for alternatives is high.
what are 4 evaluation points of theories of romantic relationships?
+: supporting evidence for CLalt (sprecher) – longitudinal study of 101 dating couples at us uni. Strong negative correlation between presence of alternatives and satisfaction in relationship. High companion of alternatives = likely to breakdown relationship.
X: criticism of social exchange theory – can’t infer cause + effect – people more likely to notice alternatives if they’re unhappy. Miller (1997) – people that rated themselves in a committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people.
X: invalid – theory suggests we must have way of measuring costs/ benefits E.g. We can’t compare benefit of seeing our child everyday with cost of arguing with our partner everyday
X: reductionist - simplifies relationship to profit/losses. Ignores reproductive success/ equity
what is equity theory?
Developed in response to criticism of social exchange theory, which ignores equity fairness.
Equity means fairness
Both partners levels of profit should be similar, in order to have equity
If one partner over-benefits (guilt) and the other under-benefits (humiliation) = lack of equity
Satisfaction is about fairness
how can we restore equity in romantic relationships?
By changing the amount we put into and demand from the relationship
Change our perceptions of inputs/ outputs to restore the appearance of equity
The more unfair the relationship, the more we try to restore it
The change could be cognitive (change what we perceive to be a cost and change it to a norm)
evidence that equity has changed over time?
Surveyed 100 ‘ s of married couples of all ages
Identified those who felt their marriages were inequitable, due to unfair division of domestic responsibilities
During the child rearing years, wives often reported feeling under-benifited and husbands over-benifitted thus marital satisfaction dipped
In contrast, during the honeymoon period and empty nest period (when child left home) husbands and wives more likely to perceive equity feel satisfaction
what are 3 evaluation points of equity theory?
+: supporting research – Stafford and canary: 200+ married couples complete measures of equity and satisfaction. Satisfaction higher for those who perceived relationship as equitable.
-: beta gender bias – females more concerned with equity than males. 1500 couples- if females sense being under-benefitted risk of divorce increases findings not same for men.
-: theory not universal – some partners benevolent (willing to contribute more than they receive), some partners known as entitleds (they believe they deserve to be over- benefitted without feeling guilt)
what is rusbult’s investment model?
Developed to explain why some people persist in relationships and others don’t. In response to limitations of SET.
Rusbult et.al (2011)- commitment to a relationship depends on 3 factors:
what are satisfaction and alternatives?
-Concept of comparison level.
-satisfying relationship = profitable (high reward/ low cost)
-getting more out of a relationship than expected based off experience/ social norms.
-comparing partner to alternatives- ‘could my needs be met better outside of this relationship’ (with another partner/ single)
what is investment size?
2 types of investment- intrinsic/extrinsic:
-intrinsic- resources we put directly into a relationship: tangible (money/possesions) or intangible (effort/ energy)
-extrinsic- resources that didn’t initially feature, but we now associate with relationship. Tangible (car/house) or intangible (shared memories/ mutual friends)
what is commitment?
-if partners experience high levels of satisfaction
-the alternatives are less attractive
-the size of investment is increasing
Then we can predict partners will be committed in a relationship. Rusbult argued commitment is more important than satisfaction as commitment can explain why dissatisfied partners chose to remain in a relationship (made investments they don’t want to waste.)
what are 4 evaluation points for factors of romantic relationships?
+: supporting evidence from meta-analysis- 52 studies including 11,000 p’s from 5 countries to discover key variables in relationship satisfaction.
Found satisfaction, CLalt and investment size predicted relationship commitment. Relationships were commitment was high, lasted longest and were most stable. Applied to males/females, heterosexual/ homosexual couples cross-culturally.
X: difficult to measure- developed ‘investment model scale’ which is high in validity/realiability; however relies on self-report (social-desirability bias/ demand characteristics)
+: recognises satisfaction isn’t only reason for maintaining relationship- study on abused women at shelter, found those most likely to return to relationship reported making greatest investment and had few attractive alternatives.
X: oversimplifies idea of investment- fails to recognise complexity of investment, how planning for future affects commitment- reductionist.
what is duck’s phase model?
Duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one off event, but a series of phases which take a long time to go through.
what is the intrapsychic phase?
One of the partners becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the relationship;
spend time dwelling on their unhappiness.
Might talk to a friend; don’t yet discuss concerns with their partner, may show their dissatisfaction by socially withdrawing from their partner.
threshold: I can’t stand it anymore
what is dyadic phase?
dissatisfied partner talk to their partner expressing dissatisfaction.
may involve complaining about lack of equity, resentment over roles & a rethinking of the commitment to the relationship.
Partners will then either begin to dissolve the relationship or attempt to repair it.
Threshold: I’d be justified in withdrawing.
what is the social phase?
If attempts at negotiation are unsuccessful the intention to break up is made public.
both partners will confide to friends & family. Some take sides whilst others try to help the couple get back together.
Threshold: I mean it
what is the grave dressing phase?
begin organising their new lives and they will both publicise own accounts of breakdown.
want to present an image of themselves that defends their reputation & gives them credit to go into another relationship.
want to convince a new partner that they are a reasonable bet & also maintain own self esteem.
Threshold: it’s now inevitable
what are 4 evaluation points of duck’s phase model?
+: real life applications, helps couples in counselling by identifying stage
-: reductionist- not all realtionships break down in same phase
-:culturally biased- american married couples, relationship breakdown different across cultures
-lack internal validity- most of research is retrospective, recall may not be accurate
what is computer mediated communication?
encompasses a wide variety of electronic communication methods through which relationships can be formed e.g., social media.
-25% of relationships are now thought to start online.
what is reduced cues theory effect on SD?
Reduced amount of non-verbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, body language), leads to less SD
-argues that CMC relationships are less successful than ftf relationships, due to lack of emotional cues (facial expressions) as were less aware of peoples emotional state.
-also argues CMC can lead to deindividuation- we don’t see the other person as an individual, thus our communication is more likely to become blunt/aggressive.
-we wouldn’t disclose our innermost feelings to someone that is ‘impersonal’.
what are 2 evaluation points of reduced cues?
X: non-verbal cues aren’t entirely missing- they are just different. Some people use other cues such as timing/style of messages (too much time before reply= snub, not enough time= no thought in reply) ignores importance of non-verbal cues.
X: Tamir and Mitchell- SD may be high on social media- increased MRI activity in 2 brain regions associated with reward (strongly active when p’s talking about themselves and when sharing their thoughts) SD is rewarding, thus humans have tendency to share personal experiences online.
what effect does abscence of gating have on SD?
More factors they may find off-putting (looks) don’t exist in virtual world, thus more SD.
-refocuses attention on SD and away from distracting features. In CMC, relationship SD is deeper and more frequent- the relationship forms quicker. Online people aren’t as interested in looks.
-people use CMC to present images of themselves they can’t ftf (introvert appearing as extrovert)
what are 2 evaluation points of abscence of gating?
+:supporting evidence- McKenna and bargh- shy people able to express true selves more than in ftf situations. Of romantic relationships formed online, 70% of them survived over 2 years (higher than in real world)
+:Relationships formed online have + consequences on offline lives- individuals can create an online identity that is appreciated by others, enhancing overall self image and quality of ftf relationships.
what are 2 evaluation points for virtual relationships?
X: doesn’t consider difference between males/females- evo. Theory states females more concerned with their looks to attract males, whereas males want to appear resourceful (beta- gender bias)
X: CMC is single construct, thus can’t be valid- on social media, people tend to have relationship on outside world, thus more SD. On dating sites SD reduces as partners intend to meet each other in the future, this doesn’t exist in online games/chatrooms where people are less inhibited.
what are the 3 levels of PSR?
1: entertainment-social- celebrities are viewed as entertainment and fuel for social interaction
2: intense-personal- greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with celebrity (a fan may have frequent obsessive thoughts of a celebrity)
3: borderline pathological- uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours- can become stalking.
what is the absorption addiction model?
people pursue parasocial relationships due to deficits in their own life (lack of fulfilment). allows them to escape from reality/ find fulfilment they can’t find in own relationships. Those with poor psychological adjustment may absorb themselves into celebrity’s life to gain sense of identity, triggered by personal crisis. Association between poor psychological health and strength of parasocial relationship.
Absorption- focus attention on celebrity, and identify with them
Addiction- sustain involvement by becoming more involved, leads to extreme behaviour like stalking
what is 1 evaluation point of absorption addiction model?
+: supporting evidence (Maltby et.al)- investigated link betweeen parasocial relationship and personality by giving p’s Eysenck personality questionare. Entertainment-social level linked to extra version. Intense-personal level linked to neuroticism (related to anxiety/ depression). Borderline pathological linked to psychotic personality type. High levels of parasocial relationship linked to poor psychological functioning.
what is attachment theory?
Tendency to form parasocial relationships originates from early childhood relationships with caregiver.
Those with insecure-resistant attatchment types as adults are more likely to become attached to celebrities than those with secure attachment types.
2 types of attachment associated with unhealthy emotional development:
Insecure-resistant- more likely to form parasocial relationships as adults, as they have unfulfilled needs, that is not accompanied by threat of rejection, break-up that real life relationships bring.
Insecure-avoidant- not likely to form parasocial relationships, prefer to avoid pain/rejection of relationships altogether.
what are 2 evaluation points of attachment theory?
+: Supporting evidence- Cole and Leets (1999). 115 students completed parasocial scale and two attachment style questionnaires. Found a person’s willingness to form parasocial bond with favourite TV personality was related to attachment beliefs. Insecure-resistant types were the most likely to form parasocial bonds. Avoidant types were the least likely to develop such relationships, and Secures were in the middle.
X: other research evidence contradicts these findings- McCutcheon et al (2006) measured
attachment type and celebrity related attitudes in 299 participants. found those with insecure-resistant attachment were no more likely than participants with secure attachment to form
parasocial relationships. doubts on the validity of the explanation.
what are 2 evaluation points of PSR?
X: methodological limitation- correlational data; strong correlations found between celebrity worship and psychological functioning/attachment type. However, cause and effect cannot be inferred. It could be that rather than psychological functioning/attachment type causing parasocial relationships to form, having a parasocial relationship in the first place may affect your psychological functioning/attachment type.
+: generalised cross-culturally- studies identified a tendency for somepeople to form a parasocial relationship with Harry Potter, an entirely fictional character. Schmid and Klimmt (2011) report that this tendency is not culturally specific. Using an online questionnaire, they found similar levels of parasocial attachment to Harry Potter in an individualist culture (Germany) and a collectivist culture (Mexico). Therefore, suggesting that the research has cross-cultural validity.
