Relationships

Question 1

Sexual selection-

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Human reproductive behaviour-

Answer 2

Any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and thereby increase the survival chances of our genes.

Question 3

Anisogamy-

Answer 3

Differences between male and female sex cells, male gametes (sperm) and female gametes (eggs or ova).

Question 4

Inter-sexual selection-

Answer 4

Between the sexes.

Question 5

Intra-sexual selection-

Answer 5

Within each sex. Preferred strategy of the male, quantity over quality, winner reproduces and gets to pass on to the offspring the characteristic that contributed to his victory.

Question 6

Inter-sexual selection: Robert Trivers (1972)

Answer 6

The female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of offspring. The females want to find a genetically fit partner, leaving the males to compete.

Question 7

Runaway process: Ronald Fisher (1930)-

Answer 7

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

Question 8

David Buss (1989)
Support for anisogamy.

Answer 8

Survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. He asked questions relating to age and other attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in a partner. Female respondents needed resource-related characteristics (money) than men. Men valued good looks and chastity.

Question 9

Clark and Hatfield (1989)
Support for inter-sexual selection.

Answer 9

Female choosiness is a reality of straight relationships. Male and female students were sent across a uni campus. They approached others with the questions, “I’ve been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to be with me rn?” No female accepted the request, 75% of men did immediately.

Question 10

Sexual selection criticism-
Social and cultural differences.

Answer 10

Bereczkei et al (1997) says social change has a consequence on women’s mate preferences as they no longer need a working man.
Chang et al (2011) compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed but others remained the same corresponding with huge social changes at the time.

Question 11

Self-disclosure-

Answer 11

Revealing personal information about yourself.

Question 12

Social penetration theory-

Answer 12

Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory of how relationships develop. Gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, reciprocal exchange of information. As they disclose more, the penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives gaining trust.

Question 13

Breadth and depth of self disclosure-
Altman and Taylor.

Answer 13

As breadth and depth increase, so does commitment. Breadth is narrow as many topics are off-limits early on in relationships.

Question 14

Reciprocity of self disclosure-

Answer 14

Reis and Shaver (1988) say, for a relationship to develop, as well as breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure.

Question 15

Self disclosure- Supports.

Answer 15

+Sprecher and Hendrick (2004), studied straight couples and found strong correlations between satisfaction and self disclosure.
+Laurenceau et al (2005) daily diary entries, found that self-disclosure was linked to higher intimacy levels.
+Hass and Stafford (1998) found 57% of gay men and women in their study said self-disclosure was that main way to keep a committed relationship (real-life application)

Question 16

Self-disclosure
Criticisms.

Answer 16

-Increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosure does not help in all cultures. Tang et al (2013) reviewed the research literature regarding sexual self-disclosure and concluded men and women in the USA self-disclosure more sexual thoughts than those in China.

Question 17

Physical attraction-

Answer 17

How appealing we find a person’s face.

Question 18

Matching hypothesis, Elaine Walster-

Answer 18

Belief that we do not select the most attractive partner but, instead, are attracted to people who ‘match’ us in physical attractiveness.

Question 19

Physical attractiveness- Shackelford and Larsen (1997).

Answer 19

Found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive because it may be a sign of genetic fitness.

Question 20

Neotenous features-

Answer 20

People are attracted to faces with neotenous features (baby-face) because these trigger a caring instinct.

Question 21

Physical attraction- McNulty et al (2008)

Answer 21

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

Question 22

The halo effect-

Answer 22

One distinguishing feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes (personality).

Question 23

Support for the halo effect-

Answer 23

Palmer and Peterson (2012), found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. Perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judges on attractiveness.

Question 24

Criticism for physical attractiveness.

Answer 24

Some people do not attach much importance to physical attraction. Towhey (1997) asked men and women p/pants to rate how much they would target a person based on a picture and biographical info. The p/pants also did a questionnaire to measure sexist attitudes. He found that p/pants who scored highly on the scale were more influenced by physical attraction.

Question 25

Support for matching hypothesis.

Answer 25

The original study that attempted to confirm matching hypothesis failed. This may be because the measure of attractiveness was not reliable. There is some support for the hypothesis in its narrow form as referring to physical attraction only. Feingold (1988) carried out meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a correlation in ratings of attractiveness between partners.

Question 26

Physical attraction support- Cultural differences.

Answer 26

Cunningham et al (1995) found female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows was highly attractive to white, hispanic and asian males.

Question 27

Filter theory Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)-

Answer 27

An explanation of relationship formation. It states that a series of different factors progressively limits the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities. Filters include: Social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.

Question 28

Social demography-

Answer 28

Demographics are features that describe populations; geographical location and social class. Such factors filter out a large number of available partners.

Question 29

Similarity in attitudes-

Answer 29

We find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of a relationship, so we tend to discount available individuals who differ markedly from us in their attitudes.

Question 30

Complementarity-

Answer 30

Similarity becomes less important as a relationship develops, and is replaced by a need for your partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own.

Question 31

Filter theory- Support from research evidence.

Answer 31

The theory assumes key factors change over time, meaning it has face validity as it is true to most people's experiences. Peter Winch (1958) found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship. This echoes the matching hypothesis, but not just physical attraction, people who have been married for years, complementarity of need is more key than similarity.

Question 32

Criticism of Filter theory- George Levinger (1974)

Answer 32

He pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. He put this down to social changes over time and the difficulties with defining depth as length. Highlights problems in applying filter theory even to other straight couples in the individualist culture, never mind gays.

Question 33

Criticism of filter theory- Cause and effect.

Answer 33

Filter theory initially suggests people are attracted to each other because they are similar. But there is evidence that this direction of causality is wrong. Anderson et al (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar emotionally over time (convergence).

Question 34

Social exchange theory-

Answer 34

A theory of how relationships form and develop. It assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs. A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when rewards exceed costs and potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship.

Question 35

Thibault and Kelley (1959) Rewards, costs and profits.

Answer 35

They say behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange. Minimise losses, maximise gains. We judge satisfaction on profit.

Question 36

Peter Blau (1964), costs in relationships.

Answer 36

Costs include time, stress, energy, compromise and so on.

Question 37

Comparison level-

Answer 37

The amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get. Influenced by past relationships and social norms (seen in media, books, films). We consider a relationship worth pursuing if our CL is high. Link with self-esteem.

Question 38

Comparison level for alternatives-

Answer 38

Questioning if a different relationship or being on your own will have better rewards. Steve Duck (1994), the CLalT we adopt will depend on t he state of our current relationship.

Question 39

Four stages of relationship development-

Answer 39

-Sampling stage: Explore rewards and costs in own relationships and by observing others. -Bargaining stage: Beginning of relation ship, negotiating and identifying what is profitable. -Commitment stage: Sources costs/rewards becomes more predictable and relationship becomes stable as costs lessen. -Institutionalisation stage: Partners are settled down.

Question 40

Clark and Mills (2011) inappropriate assumptions in SET-

Answer 40

They argue that the theory fails to distinguish between two types of relationship. Exchange relationships (work colleagues) do involve exchange as SET predicts. Communal relationships are marked by giving and receiving rewards without keeping score who has done more.

Question 41

Evaluation- SET Cause and Effect

Answer 41

Aryle (1987) says we don't measure costs and rewards in a relationship nor do we consider alternatives. Miller (1917) found that people who rated themselves as in a highly committed relationship looked at attractive people less. People in committed relationships ignore even the most attractive alternatives.

Question 42

Criticism for SET- Equity

Answer 42

Biggest concern- comparison level. Ignores one crucial factor that may be an overwhelming consideration for romantic partners- equity. Research supports the role of equity in relationships and the view that this is more important that a balance in rewards and costs. SET is a limited explanation.

Question 43

Equity theory-

Answer 43

An economic theory of how relationships develop. As such, it acknowledges impact of rewards and costs on relationship satisfaction, but criticises social exchange theory for ignoring the central role of equity.

Question 44

Equity and equality-

Answer 44

According to equity theory it is not the amount of rewards and costs that matters but the ratio.

Question 45

Consequences of inequity-

Answer 45

Problems arise when one partner puts a great deal into a relationship but gets little in return. The greater the perceived inequity, the greater dissatisfaction.

Question 46

Changes in perceived equity-

Answer 46

What makes us most dissatisfied is the change in level of perceived equity as time goes on. At the start it may feel natural to contribute more than you receive however this can lead to dissatisfaction.

Question 47

Dealing with inequity-

Answer 47

The 'put-upon' partner will work hard to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible and the relationship is salvageable. The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work. Another possible outcome is cognitive rather than behavioural. They will revise rewards and costs so the relationship feels more equitable even if nothing actually changes. What was once seen as a cost they accept as a norm.

Question 48

Equity theory- Supporting research.

Answer 48

Mary Utne et al (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with two self report scales. Aged 16 to 45 years old and had been together two years before marrying. Researchers found couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who were 'under/ over benefitting'.

Question 49

Equity theory- Criticism of cultural influences.

Answer 49

Katherine Aumer-Ryan et al (2207) compared couples in a collectivist culture (needs of the wider group come first) and an individualist culture (prioritise their own needs). Individualist culture considered their relationships most satisfying when it was equitable but collectivist culture were most satisfied when they were over benefitting. Equity theory's claim that equity is a universal need is unwarranted.

Question 50

Equity theory- Criticism of individual differences.

Answer 50

Huseman et al (1987) suggests that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners described as 'benevolents' who are prepared to contribute more than they get out of the relationship. Others are 'entitleds' who believe they deserve to over benefit. Equity is not necessarily a global feature of all romantic relationships.

Question 51

Equity theory- criticism pf types of relationships.

Answer 51

Clarke and Mills (2011)- Meta analysis research in this area. Concluded that we need to distinguish between types of relationships and that just as in SET in casual friendships and work relationships equity plays an important part yet in romantic relationships it is more complex with investment going deeper than theory allows.

Question 52

Equity theory- Support in cross-culture research.

Answer 52

Yum et al (2009)- studied 6 cultures and found that while strategies varied it was key that equity was present within each culture regardless of cultural factors showing that theory does not suffer from 'cultural bias' others do.

Question 53

Commitment-

Answer 53

A romantic partner's intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting a belief that the relationship has a long-term future.

Question 54

Satisfaction-

Answer 54

The extent to which a romantic partner feels the rewards of the relationship exceed the costs.

Question 55

Comparison with alternatives-

Answer 55

A judgement that partners make concerning whether a relationship with a different partner would bring more rewards and fewer costs.

Question 56

Investment-

Answer 56

The resources associated with a romantic relationship which the partners would lose if the relationship were to end.

Question 57

Rusbult's investment model-

Answer 57

Rusbult et al (2011) commitment depends on three factors: Satisfaction level, Comparison with alternatives, and Investment size.

Question 58

What did Rusbult think was missing from CL and CLalt?

Answer 58

Not enough explaining commitment, otherwise relationships would end as soon as costs outweighed rewards.

Question 59

Rusbult's two main types of investment:

Answer 59

-Intrinsic investment: resources going directly into the relationship (money, possessions energy, emotion and self-disclosure) -Extrinsic investment: resources which previously did not feature in the relationship but are not associated with it (house, car, mutual friends, children, shared memories).

Question 60

Relationship maintenance mechanisms (rusbult's model)-

Answer 60

Enduring partners do not engage in tit-for-tat retaliation but instead act to promote the relationship. They will also put their partner's interests first (willingness to sacrifice) and forgive them for any transgressions. Committed partners think about each other and potential alternatives in specific ways. They are unrealistically positive about their partner and negative about tempting alternatives and other people's relationships.

Question 61

5 relationship maintenance mechanisms-

Answer 61

-Accommodation -Willingness to sacrifice -Forgiveness -Positive illusions -Ridiculing alternatives

Question 62

Rusbult's investment theory- supporting research.

Answer 62

Benjamin Le and Christopher Agnew (2003) reviewed 23 studies from the 70s to 99 which included 11,000 p/pants from 5 countries. They found satisfaction, comparison with alt and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships where commitment was the greatest lasted the longest. Validity as this was true for men and women across cultures and gay relationships.

Question 63

Rusbult's investment theory- Explains abusive relationships.

Answer 63

Intimate partner violence (IVP). Rusbult and Martz (1995) studied 'battered' women at a shelter and found those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported making the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives.

Question 64

Rusbult's investment theory- Criticism as oversimplifies investment.

Answer 64

Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out there is more to investment than just the resources you already put into a relationship. They extended Rusbult's original model by including the investment romantic partners make in their future plans. The original model is a limited explanation of romantic relationships as it fails to recognise the complexity of investment and future influence.

Question 65

Duck's (2007) phase model of relationship breakdown.

Answer 65

He argued that ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through 4 phases.

Question 66

Ducks relationship breakdown phases:

Answer 66

-Intra-psychic phase -Dyadic phase -Social phase -Grave-dressing phase.

Question 67

Duck's intra-psychic phase:

Answer 67

Cognitive processes occurring within the individual. The dissatisfied partner broods on the reasons for his or her dissatisfaction, centring mostly on their partner's shortcomings. The partner mulls their thoughts over privately, and may share them with a friend. They weigh up the pros and cons of th relationship against the alternatives. The make plans for the future.

Question 68

Duck's dyadic phase-

Answer 68

Interpersonal processes between the two partners. The point where they cannot avoid talking about their relationship any longer. Series of confrontations over a period of time, in which the relationship is discussed and dissatisfactions are aired. Characterised by anxiety, hostility, complaints about lack of equality, resentment over imbalanced roles and rethinking of the commitment. Two possible outcomes- Continue breaking up the relationship or renewed desire to repair it. If rescue fails, they are screwed.

Question 69

Duck's social phase-

Answer 69

Wider processes involving the couple's social networks. Break-up is made public. Partners seek support and try to forge pacts. Mutual friends are expected to choose a side. Gossip. Some friend provide reassurance while others, judgement and place blame. This is usually the point of no return.

Question 70

Duck's grave-dressing phase-

Answer 70

Aftermath. Spin a favourable story about the breakdown for the public- save face and positive reputation usually at the expense of the other partner. Each partner tries to retain some 'social credit' by blaming everyone but themselves. Also creating a personal story you can live with, this is more to do with tidying up the memories of the relationship and rewriting history.

Question 71

Duck's model- Criticism of incomplete model.

Answer 71

Rollie and Duck (2006) say the original model is oversimplified. Added the final phase: resurrection phase. Ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships. Rollie and Duck also state progression from one phase to the next is not inevitable. They may back track to a previous phase. The original model does not account fro the dynamic nature or break-ups with all their inherent uncertainty and complexity.

Question 72

Duck's model- Criticism of methodological issues.

Answer 72

Most research is retrospective. P/pants give their experiences of breakdown after the relationship has ended. What they recall might not always be reliable. It is the early stages that tend to be distorted or perhaps even ignored altogether. Duck's model is based on research that ignored this early part of the process so it is an incomplete description of how relationships end.

Question 73

Duck's model- Support for real-life application.

Answer 73

Helps identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown and various ways of reversing it. Recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown. Such insights could be used in relationship counselling.

Question 74

Absence of gating-

Answer 74

Face to face (FtF) relationships often fail to form because of obstacles such as facial disfigurements that some people may find off-putting. These are absent in computer-mediated communication (CMC) allowing virtual relationships to being in a way they couldn't in the offline world.

Question 75

Sproull and Kiesler (1986) Reduced cues thoery-

Answer 75

CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack social cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions. Nonverbal cues, emotional cues, body language. This leads to de-individuation because it reduces people's sense of individual identity.

Question 76

Walther (1996, 2011) and Cooper + Sportolari (1997) -

Answer 76

Walther argues that online relationships can be MORE personal and involve greater self-disclosure can FtF ones. CMC relationships can develop quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier and after they are more intense and intimate. They can also end more quickly because the high excitement level isn't matched in trust. Cooper and Sportolari (1997) called this boom and bust phenomenon of online relationships.

Question 77

Hyperpersonal model-

Answer 77

A key feature of self-disclosure in virtual relationships is the sender of the msg has rime to manipulate their online image than they would in a FtF situation. Walther calls this selective self-presentation. People online have control over what to disclose and the cues they send. Easier to manipulate online relationships.

Question 78

Criticism for reduced cues- lack of research

Answer 78

The theory is wrong to suggest that nonverbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. Walther and Tidwell (1995) point out that people in online interactions use other cues such as style and timing in messages. Acrostics (LOL), emoticons and increasingly, emojis are used as substitutes for facial expressions and tone.

Question 79

Support for hyperpersonal model- research.

Answer 79

Hyperpersonal model predicts that people are motivated to self-disclose in CMC in ways which are sometimes 'hyperhonest' and 'hyperdishonest'. Whitty and Joinson (2009) summaries evidence that this is the case. Questions online can be very direct and probing which is differing to FtF small talk;. Support the central assertion of the model.

Question 80

Criticism for CMC- relationships are multimodal.

Answer 80

Walther (2011) argues that any theory explaining CMC need to accommodate the fact that relationships are generally conducted both online and offline through many different media. This is the central characteristic to many modern relationships.

Question 81

Parasocial relationships-

Answer 81

Para means resembling so parasocial relationships are those that are similar to 'normal' relationships but lack a key element. They are one-sided, unreciprocated relationships usually with a celebrity.

Question 82

Levels of parasocial relationships-

Answer 82

Found by McCutcheon et al (2002)- A three-step description of one-sided relationships in terms of increasing strength from entertainment-social to intense-personal to borderline pathological.

Question 83

Entertainment-social level of parasocial relationships:

Answer 83

Least intense level. Celebs are sources of entertainment and fuel for social interaction ( talking w/ friends about them). Giles (2002) found parasocial relationships were a fruitful source of gossip in offices.

Question 84

Intense-personal level of parasocial relationships:

Answer 84

Intermediate level, greater personal involvement in a parasocial relationship with a celeb. Frequent obsessive thoughts and intense feelings about the celeb maybe considering them as a 'soul-mate'

Question 85

Borderline pathological level of parasocial relationships:

Answer 85

Strongest level, uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours. Including: spending a large sum of of money on a celeb-related object, or willing to perform an illegal act on the celeb's say-so.

Question 86

Absorption-addiction model: McCutcheon (2002)-

Answer 86

Explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives. A parasocial relationship allows them an 'escape from reality'.

Question 87

Absorption-addiction model: Absorption-

Answer 87

Seeking fulfilment in celeb worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity, to become pre-occupied in their existence and identify with them.

Question 88

Absorption-addiction model: Addiction-

Answer 88

Individual needs to sustain their commitment to the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement with the celeb. May lead to extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.

Question 89

Support of the levels of parasocial relationships- Maltby (2005)

Answer 89

Maltby investigated the link between celeb worship and body image in males and females aged 14 to 16 years. Found that female adolescents tended to have a poor body image and speculated this link may be a precursor to the development of eating disorders.

Question 90

Methodological issues with research on parasocial relationships-

Answer 90

Most research uses self-report methods. this can lead to bias. Most studies use correlational analysis. Strong correlations are found between celeb worship and body image, but the conclusion that an intense-personal parasocial relationship CAUSES young women to have poor body image is unwarranted. The issue of cause and effect can be addressed by longitudinal-research. This questions the validity.

Question 91

Criticism for the absorption-addiction model:

Answer 91

Model has been criticised for being a better description of parasocial relationships than explanation.