Relationships Flashcards
The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences (A01)
Males look for: qualities that indicate fertility (large breasts, 0.7 hip to waist ratio)
Females look for: qualities that help raise a child (tall, healthy, wealthy)
Intersexual selection (mate choice): members of one sex (typically females) choose who to mate with based on specific traits. It’s generally women who choose because they are the ones investing more in offspring
Intersexual selection(mate competition) members of the same sex compete with each other to attract the opposite sex. Males are more likely to compete as they don’t invest time in offspring
The evolutionary explanations for partner preferences (A03)
✅explanatory power - maximising potential: women apply makeup to appear young, men show off money, status and gym to how independence
❌reductionist - social and cultural differences: in many cultures, women are denied economic independence which explains why they rely on men for money. Social change has consequences on women’s mate preferences
❌determinist - individual differences: homosexual partner preferences and younger men attracted to older women
❌SSR - creates negative stereotypes of double standards e.g women should be attractive and men should me muscular
Factors affecting romantic relationships: Physical attractiveness (A01)
The halo effect: the cognitive bias that where the person assumes that the attractive person has positive traits. If people are more attractive → we act more positively towards them (Aronson) attractive victims given shorter sentences in court
The matching hypothesis: (Walster) people do n estimate of who would find them attractive, they realise at a young age that not everyone can get the most attractive partner, to avoid being rejected people go for people in their league with the same level of attractiveness, it would be evolutionary foolish not to do so
Factors affecting attraction in physical relationships: Physical attractiveness (A03)
❌ conflicting evidence - evidence rejecting the matching hypothesis theory: (Walster) conducted a study of university students, attended a party, given a questionnaire rating intelligence and personality, after 6 months students were asked to b rate their partner → higher appreciation to partner of they were attractive regardless of their own attractiveness
❌ lacks mundane realism - according to the hypothesis, we seek relationships with people bc who are a ‘god match’ in fear of rejection however in this study, people were given partners before rejection could even occur, without the possibility of rejection, no wonder people chose the most attractive person
❌ individual differences: (Towey) there are individual differences that people place of attractiveness. Pps given photos and had to rate their attractiveness → found physical attractiveness was more important to men that displayed sexist attitudes → decreases generalisability
❌ hypothesis ignores that people may compensate physical attractiveness for personality, wealth, status etc. E.g. Melania Trump and Donald Trump
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: Self Disclosure (A01)
social penetration theory (Altman et al)
gradually revealing emotions and experiences lead to greater understanding and trust. (Hendrick) conducted a longitudinal study of 100 heterosexual couples, found that there was a positive correlation between self disclosure and relationship quality. onion metaphor first layer - people share alot of info of themselves. As they build trust, depth increases → more intimacy
reciprocity
self disclosure works best when is reciprocated → if one person shares, the other is more willing to aswell → that may be a breakdown of trust if one person shares more than the other → once you reveal something about your true self, you hope your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: Self Disclosure (A03)
✅ practical applications: counselling and therapy programmes helps improve communication → helps couple promote self disclose → higher intimacy
❌ correlation don’t imply causation: does self disclose lead to greater attraction or does greater attraction lead to greater self disclosure?
❌ cultural bias: social penetration theory based on western individualist culture → may not bc apply to collectivist cultures (Tang) men vc and women in the USA disclosed more sexual thoughts than couples in China but still has same relationship satisfaction rates
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: Filter Theory (A01)
(Kerchoff and Davis) field of eligibles
1st filter: social demographics → geographical location (proximity), social class, level of education, ethnicity → you’re more likely to meet someone proximally closer (Pepall) similarity of race class and religious in relationships) e.g. muslim marriages
2nd filter: similarity → narrows down or field of eligibles → most stable marriages are of those that are similar → similar beliefs and values → there’s a need for our partners to agree with us → boosts self esteem → deeper communication
3rd filter: complementary of needs → one has characteristics the other lacks e.g. someone with a setting need to be cared for is attracted to a person who has nurturing qualities → advantageous → we benefit from it → idea that they become a whole together
Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: Filter Theory (A03)
✅ practical application: if we know what to look for in a relationship this can be applied to the dating when trying to find a match e.g same religion MuzzMatch → £200m revenue → economic implications
❌ temporal validity: some stages seen as less relevant, more multicultural relationships → demography is less of a barrier →we can form relationships beyond geographical barriers
❌ culture bias: most research from this theory uses people from western individualist cultures where they value free choice. in collectivist cultures, it’s common for arranged marriage, partners can’t really apply individual filters → not universal
Theories of romantic relationship: social exchange theory (A01)
Comparison level: people use comparison levels to assess, how profitable their relationships are → comparison level is based on a persons idea of how much for a war they receive in relationships. These norms are reinforced through movies and other relationships → people with higher self-esteem expect higher awards
comparison level for alternatives: people stick to their current relationship as long as they find their relationship, is more profitable than other relationships → people with greater relationship satisfaction, so alternative as less important
Theories of romantic relationship: social exchange theory (A03)
✅ real life application: led to the development of behavioural couples therapy → partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchange → decrease the proportion of negative ones by changing behaviour patterns
❌ direction of causality: we are unsure whether comparison level leads to dissatisfaction or dissatisfaction leads to comparison level analysis
✅ determinist: SET accounts for free will BUT there are many cases where people stay in high cost relationship. For example, when one partner is clinically ill and people who stay in abusive relationships, despite the lack of rewards
Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory (A01)
people strive for fairness in relationship. This theory states people expect the rewards they get for a relationship to be equal to the contribution they put into it.
those who under benefit can feel angry resentful those two over benefit can feel guilty and uncomfortable, therefore equity leads to successful relationship
perception of equity changes over time, it’s normal to put a lot of effort into relationship at the beginning, but if it carries on for too long, it can lead to the dissatisfaction
(Canary) those who over benefited in relationships felt best satisfaction
Equity means to receive the same number of rewards as inputs. e.g. man puts in a lot of effort for caring for his wife like a gifts, in return, he receives sex
Theories of romantic relationships: equity theory (A03)
❌ direction of causality: does the dissatisfaction cause inequity or does inequity cause dissatisfaction?
❌nomothetic approach: individual differences – peoples perception of equity is different in all relationships → some people are less sensitive to equity, e.g. they give more into the relationship and don’t feel angry about it. Other people believe they should over benefit from the relationship and don’t feel guilty
❌ cultural bias: (Gergen) found American students preferred quit whereas European students preferred equality
In non western collectivist cultures people were more satisfied when over benefiting
Theories of romantic relationships: Investment model (A01)
**Investment model **: (Rusbult) if people want to end a relationship, they weigh out the cost and rewards, possible alternatives how much has been invested into the relationship. Intrinsic: things we put directly into RS (money effort self disclosure) Extrinsic: things brought into people’s lives (family friends)
**maintenance mechanisms **: used by partners who are committed to maintain the RS
willingness to forgive
ridiculing alternatives
positive illusions
Theories of romantic relationships: Investment model (A03)
✅ explanatory power: explains why people stay in abusive relationships: they don’t want to lose their investments
❌ oversimplification (Agnew) it’s not just the things that we bring into the RS, but also a couples plan for the future that could count as an investment. It’s hard to create new schemas with new people when you’ve already planned your life in your head.
Theories of romantic relationship: relationship breakdown (A01)
(duck)
Intrapsychic phase: internal thought process, where one partner is unhappy, keeps it to them. Self stage ends when complaining to others.
dyadic phase: finally confront partner, usually leads to hostility, focus on if they should reinvest or realise that the relationship has broken apart
social phase: other people are involved friends are encouraged to choose a side. They are there in courage, reconciliation or break up. They provide opinion.
grave dressing phase: they justify the breakup wasn’t their fault and they don’t want to lower their chances of future relationships. they’re ready to start a new one.
resurrection: people use old experience for the new relationship. Personal growth.
Theories of romantic relationship: relationship breakdown (A03)
✅Practical application: marital counselling, identify breakup stage and target issues of that stage
❌explanatory power: doesn’t explain why people break up and what leads to the initial stages of the model (other models do). fatal attraction model says some characteristics that you may find initially attractive to are the same characteristics that lead to the breakdown. For example, being caring is later seen as clingy
❌ culture bias: north americans individualistic → temporary relationships → voluntary breakup
non western relationships → permanent RS →don’t go through the phases →not universal
Virtual relationships in social media (A01)
*self-disclosure**: self disclosure happens faster online due to anonymity → we avoid self disclosure irl in fear of being ridiculed →more intimate as we can edit desirable responses
absence of gating: irl, we are influenced by appearance, mannerisms etc. May be likely their personality is similar but gates prevent this from happening. Gates are present online, good for shy people
Virtual relationships in social media (A03)
❌ potential dangers: females harassed, children groomed, cheating
✅ practical application: allows people with poor social vc skills to form relationships
❌ lacks temporal validity: constructed during a time when communication was only text based, now can facetime so thing mechanisms are back
❌ lack of ftf communication can lead to difficulty forming relationships irl and lack of social skills
Parasocial Relationships (A01)
Levels of parasocial relationship (McCutchen)
Entertainment: can only follows the celebrity’s lifestyle soo they can use it to gossip with friends
Intense personal: can feels strong personal connection with celebrity and may talk n about them obsessively
*borderline pathological**: behaviours become fantasies and become uncontrollable, strong feelings, stalking
Absorption addiction model: behaviour designed to make the person feel closer to the celebrity. For example, repeatedly play the music or researching facts. addiction refers to the escalation of behaviour to strengthen the relationship. they become delusional and try to get closer to the celebrity by stalking.
Parasocial Relationships (A03)
