Relationships Flashcards
How does research support Rusbult’s investment model in theories of romantic relationships?
Point: Research supports the validity of Rusbult’s investment model in understanding romantic commitment.
Evidence: Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis found that the model’s factors (satisfaction, alternatives, and investment) are consistent predictors of commitment across different cultures, relationship types, and orientations.
Explanation: This suggests the model has broad applicability and effectively explains why people remain committed to relationships.
What is a key counterpoint to the research support for Rusbult’s investment model in theories of romantic relationships?
Point: Research supporting Rusbult’s model shows correlation, not causation.
- Evidence: Le and Agnew’s (2003) meta-analysis found a strong correlation between model factors (satisfaction, alternatives, investment) and commitment, but did not prove causation.
- Explanation: This means the model may only describe associations, not direct causes of commitment, as other unmeasured factors could influence relationship stability.
- Link: Without causal evidence, the model may oversimplify complex reasons behind commitment in relationships.
Question: How does Rusbult’s investment model explain why people stay in abusive relationships?
- Point: Rusbult’s model explains why people may remain committed to abusive relationships.
- Evidence: Research by Rusbult and Martz (1995) found that individuals in abusive relationships often report high investment (e.g., time, resources) and low alternatives, which contribute to their decision to stay.
- Explanation: This highlights that commitment can persist even in highly dissatisfying relationships if investments are significant and alternatives are limited.
- Link: Yet, satisfaction alone doesn’t account for all factors in abusive relationships; other influences may also be important for understanding such complex commitment.
What is a limitation of Rusbult’s investment model regarding the complexity of investments in romantic relationships?
Point: A limitation of Rusbult’s investment model is its oversimplified view of what constitutes an “investment.”
Evidence: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue the model primarily focuses on past resources invested, neglecting future plans and goals partners may have.
Explanation: By overlooking future-oriented investments, the model misses key motivations for commitment, such as shared aspirations and long-term goals.
Link: This limits the model’s ability to fully capture the complexity** of what keeps partners invested in a relationship, as not all investments are tangible or past-oriented.
How does Duck’s phase model apply to real-world relationship breakdowns?
Point: Duck’s model has practical applications in understanding real-world breakdowns.
- Evidence: In the intra-psychic phase, partners may focus on each other’s negative traits, leading them to reflect on the relationship’s viability.
- Explanation: This suggests that the model’s stages, like focusing on negatives and attempting communication, mirror real behaviors, making it relevant in therapy or counseling.
- Link: The model helps explain how people can use communication and support to improve or end relationships, especially in the dyadic phase.
What is a cultural counterpoint to Duck’s phase model in theories of relationship breakdown?
Point: Duck’s model may not be universally applicable across cultures.
- Evidence: Moghaddam et al. (1993) argue that the model is based on breakdowns in Western, individualistic cultures, where relationships are voluntary and termination is acceptable. In collectivist cultures, relationships are often obligatory and less easily dissolved.
- Explanation: This means the model’s emphasis on individual choice and self-reflection may not be relevant in cultures where relationship breakdown is uncommon or discouraged.
- Link: Therefore, Duck’s model may only partially explain relationship breakdown, limiting its effectiveness outside Western contexts.
What is a limitation of Duck’s phase model regarding its completeness in explaining relationship breakdown?
Point: Duck’s model is incomplete as it lacks a “resurrection” phase.
- Evidence: Rollie and Duck (2006) proposed a resurrection phase, where individuals apply what they’ve learned from the breakup to future relationships.
- Explanation: This phase addresses personal growth and change after a breakup, which the original model misses.
- Link: Without this phase, Duck’s model may not fully capture the process of moving on, making it less comprehensive in explaining the entire breakdown experience.
What is a limitation of Duck’s phase model in terms of explaining the early stages of breakdown?
Point: The early phases of Duck’s model, especially the intra-psychic phase, are less clearly explained.
- Evidence: Research shows that people often recall early phases inaccurately since they occur “long ago” and may spend extended time in this stage.
- Explanation: This suggests that the model’s reliance on retrospective accounts may distort the accuracy of how breakdowns progress.
- Link: Therefore, Duck’s model might be less reliable in explaining the early stages as compared to the later stages.
What are the evaluation points for Rusbults model as a theory of romantic relationships?
+) research support
C.P -> correlation not causation
+) explanatory power
-) oversimplifies investment
What are the evaluation points of Duck’s phase model?
+) RWA
C.P-> individualist vs collectivist
-) incomplete model
+) early phases less well explained
What is sexual selection?
any genes that promote sucsessful reproduction are selected
What is anisogamy?
refers to the difference between male and female sex cells.
Sperm = cheap
Ova = expensive -> more energy needed to produce them
What is a consequence of anisogamy?
plenty of fertile males but fertile males are a rare resource
What are 2 mating strategies?
Inter-sexual selection
Intra-sexual selection
What in inter-sexual selection?
selection of mates between sexes
females select males and males select females
What is intrasexual selection?
selection of mates within sexes
males compete with other males for mates
What is the female strategy of inter-sexual selection?
quality over quanitity
females make a greater investment of time and commitment before,during and after birth
so optimum strategy so want to select a genetically-fit partner able to provide resources
What is the impact of the female strategy of inter-sexual selection on partner preference?
preferences of both sexes determine the attributes that are passed on
if females prefer an attractive male trait it increases in the male population over generations, females choose the trait males so the trait becomes exaggerated and more men with this attribute
What is the male strategy for intra-sexual selection?
Quantity over quality
Males compete for access to females as sperm is plentiful but fertile females are a limited resource and are choosy
sucsessful males pass on these genes to next generation so traits that contribute their victory are perpetuated
What is the impact of the male strategy of quantity over quality on intra-sexual selection?
behavioural consequences - aggressiveness helps win competitions and will be passed down
physical - size selected in males and fertility selected in females
What are the evaluation points for Evolutionary explanations for partner preference?
+) research support for inter-sexual selection
+) research support for intra-sexual
-) culture bias
How is research support for inter-sexual selection?
P - research support for inter-sexual selection
Ev - Clark and Hatfield had students ask other students if they would go to bed with them. No female students agreed but 75% of males agreed to the female’s requests
Ex - supports the view that females are more choosy in P.P and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive sucsess
How is research support form Buss and Schmidt in 2016 a counter for intersexual selection research support?
P - sexual selection theory is simplistic and primitive
Ev - Buss and Schmidt claim this because one strategy is adaptive for all males and another is adaptive for all females.
Ex - instead both have similar preferences like kindness loyalty
L -more complex and takes context of reproductive behaviour into account
How is research support a strength of intra-sexual selection?
P - research support for intra-sexual selection
Ev - Buss (1989) asked 10,000 adults in 33 countries what characteristics they thought were important in partner preferences
Ex - found females valued resource-related characteristics more than males and males sought reproductive capacity
L - these findings reflect the consistent sex differences in preferences, supporting predictions from sexual selection theory
How is cultural bias a limitation of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
P - partner preferences have been influenced by changing social norms, cultural practices. These have occurred too rapidly to be explained in evolutionary terms
Ev - wider availability of contraception and changing roles in the workplace mean women’s partner preferences are no longer resource-oreintated
Ex - suggests partner preferences are both likely to be due to both evolutionary and cultural influences, L - a theory that fails to explain both is limited
How is facial symmetry seen as attractive?
Shackleford and Larsen (1997) - found people with symmetrical faces are more attractive
sign of genetic fitness that cannot be faked, honest signal
What features are seen as attractive?
Baby face
symmetry
How are baby faces an attractive feature?
trigger protective and caring instincts
related to attachment formation
What is the halo effect?
When we hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of physically attractive people
believe that all their other attributes are overwhelmingly positive
Dion et al 1972 found physically attractive people are consistiently rated as kind, strong , sociable compared with unattractive
What is the matching hypothesis?
we choose partners who match us in attractiveness
we settle for those in our league to avoid rejection
How is research support a strength of the halo effect?
P - Research support is a strength of the halo effect
Ev - Palmer and Petersen found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgable and competent
Ex - implies politicians may be elected because they are attractive
L - Halo effect can be observed irl situations
How is correlational research a counter for research support of the halo effect?
P - cannot assume correlation is causation
L - research only provides limited support for the theory
How is cultural consistency a strength of the halo effect?
P - cultural consistiency in what is considered attractive
Ev - Cuunningham et al (1995) found large eyes, small nose, prominent cheekbones found attractive by white,asian and hispanic men
Ex - physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots
L - However, not everyone finds physical attractiveness important, not significant in relationship formation for all partners
How is real word research not supporting assumptions a limitation of physical attractiveness’s matching hypothesis?
P - online dating has not supported it’s assumptions
Ev - Taylor et al (2011) found that online daters sought dates with people more attractive than themselves and didn’t consider their own attraction levels
Ex - matching hypothesis does not explain preferences regarding physical attractiveness in a useful way and therefore lacks external validity
What are the evaluation points for Physical attractiveness?
+) research support for halo effect
-) cultural consistency of halo effect
-) real word research
What are the evaluation points for SET?
-) assumes all relationships are exchange based
-) explores concepts that are difficult to quantify
+)research support
C.P - > Studies into SET ignore role of equity
How is research support a strength of SET?
P - research support
Ev - Kurdeck (1995) found that committed partners (homosexual and heterosexual) percieved that they had the most rewards the fewest costs and unattractive alternatives
Ex - supports SET’s prediction that rewards and costs and alternatives independently influence commitment
L - findings validate SET across the different types of relationships, enhancing credibility
What is a counter of SET having research support?
P - fails to consider equity
Ev - Research suggests fairness in percieved rewards and costs is more important than the balance itself
Ex - Kurdex’s study overlooks how the partners sense of inequity impacts relationship satisfaction
L - limits SET as it cannot exlplain findings highlighting equity’s significance in relationships
What is self-disclosure?
revealing intimate information to another person
like hopes, fears, likes, dislikes
What is self-disclosure important for?
plays an important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction
What is social penetration theroy?
Altman and Taylor (1973)
gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
penetration leads to development
breadth is narrow to begin with
depth increases
How does penetration lead to development?
as romantic partners disclose more they penetrate more deeply into other people’s lives
What is depenetration?
describes how dissatisified partners self-disclose less as they disengage from the relationship
What happens to breadth in a relationship?
Breadth is narrow to begin with as too much information being revealed may be off-putting and one partner may decide to quit the relationship
breadth increases
