Relationships Flashcards
Sexual selection
Sexual selection argues that if a characteristic increases the chances of reproduction then the characteristic will be adaptive because the animal will have more offspring. Sexual selection is the selection of characteristics that increase mating success. Two types of sexual selection are intra-sexual and inter-sexual
Intra-sexual selection
Preferred choice for males. Competition between members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex, most cases is males fighting each other for the female.
Inter-sexual selection
Preferred choice for females. Where one sex chooses traits they desire in the other sex- quality strategy. Females choose to mate with males who are strong and can provide resources. Males choose females who look youthful as a sign of fertility
Conflict between natural selection and sexual selection
Sometimes traits that are attractive to a mate make an individual less likely to survive, so sexual selection can conflict with natural selection more generally. For example female peacocks find brightly coloured tails of males attractive but it also makes them more noticeable to predators. This created the handicap principle theory
The Handicap Principle
Zahavi (1975) argued that displaying a noticeable handicap to survival actually indicates survival strength because if an individual has managed to survive (and ancestors survived to reproduce) despite having the unhelpful characteristic, then they must have superior genes. Can be applied to humans to, masculine facial features result from high testosterone which causes immune system to be less responsive so these features can be an indicator of ‘quality’ genes as they can afford the handicap. Women may choose men with this handicap because it shows a superiority of genes.
Buss (1989)- Gender differences in partner preferences
Questionnaires were used to collect data from over 10,000 men and women from 37 different cultural groups. Women valued variables associated with gaining resources (money, safe environment) more highly than men. Men valued variables associated with reproductive capacity (youth) more highly than women. Concluded that women have had limited access to resources needed to provide for themselves and offspring and men’s reproductive success is limited by finding fertile women so they are attracted to women who are more fertile. Not a truly representative study but it is cross-cultural suggesting universality
Sexual strategies theory
Theory argues that men and women apply various different strategies for choosing partners, depending on the situation. These strategies have evolved to help them meet the different requirements they have of long-term and short-term partners. Women try to assess the quality of genes like genetic fitness or height whereas males of availability and fertility
Strengths and Weaknesses of sexual strategy theory
The idea that men and women have different strategies is supported, the argument for men seeking fertility is also supported.
There are more similarities than differences between men and women’s responses in Buss’s study, more difference between cultures rather than genders. Explanations of partner choice don’t take into account social determinants of behaviour (women have less opportunities than men which can influence women’s choices). Lots of evidence comes from studies of other animals, cannot be generalised to humans
Social Exchange Theory
Suggests that people try to maximise rewards from a relationship (attention, self-esteem, happiness), and minimise costs (time, money). If the relationship is to continue, then the rewards must not be outweighed by the costs, instead there should be profit so relationships are formed using a ‘cost-benefit analysis, striving to get more and give less can cause an unequal relationship
Comparison Level (CL)
The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get based on experiences in previous relationships, which feeds into the expectations of our current one. Influenced by social norms. CL changes as we acquire more data from experiences
Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt)
In current relationship you consider whether you could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship or being on your own. Social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than an alternative but if an alternative is better we are more likely to end the relationship
Relationship Development (SET)
1.Sampling, we consider potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with others available at the time
2.Bargaining, we give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile
3.Commitment, each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, lowering costs
4.Institutionalisation, relationship norms and expectations are firmly established
Physical attractiveness
Important factor in relationship formation, usually how appealing we find a person’s face, general agreement across and within cultures. Cunningham(1986) found some in a study asking 75 males students to rate photos of 50 women. He found several features for attractiveness- large eyes, small noses, small chins, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks. Generally men are more likely than women to report appearance as important in attraction but both men and women consider it important for a short-term partner.
Self-disclosure
Revealing personal information about yourself, including your views and feelings. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops . These revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately
Filter Theory
People filter possible mates from a range of candidates. Suggests that people use different methods at different levels of the process. Begin with proximity variables such as geographical location, we then move to more similarity variables such as social class and then complementary variables to seek personality characteristics which complement our own values
Social demographic filter
The first filter. Initially we for, a ‘field of availables’- these are potential people to form a relationship with. Based on social and demographic factors such as age, religion, living near eachother, etc
Similarity in attitudes filter
We narrow the set of available people down to a smaller ‘field of desirables’- these are people who a relationship is more likely to progress with. This filter is based on sharing similar attitudes, values and interests, or similar social class.
Complementarity filter
In the longer term, relationships will progress if both partners are fulfilling each others needs, so this filter is based on two people being a good complement to each other
Matching Hypothesis Study
Walster et al (1966)- A ‘computer dance’ was advertised to uni students and tickets sold to 376 men and 376 women. The people selling tickets secretly rated each student for attractiveness. Pptts were told that a computer would match them with a date for the dance with similar interests (didn’t know they were in a study), instead they were randomly paired. During the dance pptts filled a questionnaire about their date and were contacted 4-6months later to see if they went on further dates. Pptts rated as more attractive were more liked and more frequently asked on further dates than less attractive, those with similar attractive levels were not significantly more liked than those with a different level. The matching hypothesis wasn’t supported, people prefer attractiveness regardless of their own attractiveness. Low ecological validity, very different from normal dating as they didn’t choose their dates, raters had a small amount of time to rate and people prepared for the dance and may have become more attractive and not matched their previous rating
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Matching Hypothesis
White (1980) studies 123 couples. He found that couples who were only dating at the start of the study were more likely to have progressed to a serious relationship 9 months later if both partners were similarly attractive.
Results from Walster’s didn’t support it. Ignores individual differences as not all people place importance on physical attractiveness
The Investment Model-
Rusbult(1980)- The stability of a relationship overtime is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship, and that depends on: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment
Quality of alternatives
Attractive alternatives- may leave the relationship. No alternative exists- may maintain the relationship. Sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one
Intrinsic investments
What we put directly in: time, money, personal info
Extrinsic Investments
Resources associated with the relationship: shared pet, friends, children, memories
Pros and Cons of investment model
Meta-analysis found a significant correlation between commitment to a relationship and satisfaction,quality of alternatives, investment. Commitment level was also found to be a significant predictor of longevity. Theory may be too simplistic in trying to describe how relations are formed- it’s quite complex. Theories also don’t consider cultural and gender factors, which can cause people to treat relationships in different ways
Relationship maintenance mechanism
Commitment expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviours. Enduring relationships act to promote and accommodate the relationships. Put partner’s interest first- willingness to sacrifice and forgive serious transgressions
Equity Theory
Suggests that people strive to achieve fairness in their relationships. They want to receive rewards from relationships that are in balance with the rewards they provide for the partner, if unequal or unfair it produces discomfort and distress in both partners. Under benefit- anger, hostility, resentment. Over benefit- guilt, discomfort, shame.
Hatfield et al (1979)- Equity Theory
Asked newlyweds to assess what they and their partner contributed to the relationship and their level of contentment with the marriage. The least satisfied were those who were under-benefited (unhappy about giving most). The next least were those who were over-benefited (felt guilty). Equal relationships were the most satisfactory
Cons of Equity Theory
There may be sex differences in how we feel about unequal relationships. Argyle (1988) found that over benefited men were almost as satisfied as those in equitable marriages. Over benefited women were much less satisfied than women in equal relationships
Duck’s four-phase break up model
Intra-psychic phase- inside the head of one person, one partner becomes dissatisfied with the relationship. (cognitive)
Dyadic phase- between two people. The other partner is told about this (confront)
Social phase- beyond the couple. Break-up is made public, implications are discussed, the relationship can still be saved here (marital support, therapy).
Grave-dressing phase- finishing the relationship completely, ex-partners organise their lives post-relationship and tell their own version of the break-up and of current relation with ex.
Evaluation of Ducks phase model
One phase clearly leads onto the next as a threshold point is reached. Doesn’t take into account individual differences and research evidence suggests it doesn’t show how complex breakdowns of relationships can be. For example some people may actively lead it to speed it up and some may be passive to let things resolve themselves. Doesn’t take into account cultural differences and it doesn’t explain why relationships may break down
Pre-existing doom (phase model)
Incompatibility and failure are fairly much guaranteed from the start of the relationship
Mechanical failure (phase model)
Two compatibles, well meaning people grow apart and find they cannot live together any longer
Sudden death (phase model)
Discovery of infidelity or the occurrence of a traumatic incident (huge argument) leading to immediate ending of the relationship
Joinson (2001)- Self disclosure in computer coms
Laboratory study, students paired and asked to discuss an abstract dilemma which stimulated conversation. Transcripts of convos were rated on levels of self-disclosure. Half discusses face to face and half on a chat programme (with half having a video on to see eachother), raters weren’t told which transcripts were which group. Pptts in computer condition showed significantly more self-disclosure than f2f but those who had videos on has lower levels of self disclosure than those without video. Study can be replicated, pptts were almost all in same sex pairs so can’t be generalised to those who aren’t same sex. Raters may have been able to tell difference which may cause bias
Self-awareness affecting computer communication
Public and private, aware of how u appear to others and looking inwards, aware of thoughts and feelings and behaviour. Chatting via computer usually involves anonymity and focussing on your thoughts and feelings to express them in writing. Joinson suggested that this is likely to create low public and high private self-awareness, which may explain why this type of communication results in higher self disclosure
Gating
A process which limits how much we self disclosure- obstacles known as ‘gates’ which prevent people from sharing information, meaning they cannot develop intimacy and build a relationship. Gates can be appearance, shyness or social skills, apparent when you meet face to face but aren’t obvious in virtual communication. Absence of gating in virtual relations means self-disclosure is higher
McKenna et al (2002)- Virtual Relationships
Surveys sent to randomly selected members of online special interest forums, survey asked how people interact offline, whether they shared more with other online and how close the relationships they formed online were. Follow up surveys sent two years later which asked similar questions to see for changes. People who shared aspects online which they didn’t offline reported developing internet relationships quicker than real-life relationships. Over half met the internet friend face to face. After two years 71% of romantic relationships started online remained. McKenna proposed that online relationships have a stable base, they begin based on mutual interests and self-disclosure rather than outward appearances. Absence of gating allows strong relationships to form quickly. High ecological validity
Support for Absence of gating and Con of self disclosure in computer communication
McKenna (2000) looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people, found that these people were able to express their ‘true selves’ more than in FtF situations.
Extent and depth of disclosure depend on the type of CMC, disclose different amounts on different apps, research approaches CMC as a single concept which neglects its variety and causes reduced validity
What are parasocial relationships
One-sided, unreciprocated relationships, usually with a celebrity, on which the ‘fan’ expends a lot of emotional energy, commitment and time but the celebrity is unaware of their existence
Three Levels of Parasocial Relationships
Entertainment-Social: where the relationship with the celebrity exists as a source of fun, shared with others in a social group
Intense-Personal: obsessive thoughts begin to arise in relation to the celebrity (e.g. they are my soulmate)
Borderline-Pathological: obsessive thoughts begin to give rise to fully fledged fantasies (e.g. they are my partner) and behaviours (e.g. sending love letters). It is at this stage that stalking may begin, which involves a level of pursuit that is intimidating
Attachment Theory for Parasocial Relationships
Bowlby suggested that people form close attachments with their caregivers. These bonds influence how they attach and relate to other people in adulthood. In terms of celebrities, theory suggests that children who didn’t form close attachments with caregivers may later develop insecure attachments as adults which makes them more likely to be attracted to celebrities. In one sided relationships there is little opportunity for rejection
For and Against attachment theory with Parasocial relationships
For: Robert’s (2007) study supports the link as he replicated McCutcheon’s study for the parasocial levels and found a positive correlation between insecurely attached individuals and frequently contacting celebrities
Against: McCutcheon (2006) asked over 250 uni students to complete questionnaires which examined their personality types and their views on celebrities and found no correlation between insecure attachment and forming parasocial relationships
Absorption Addiction Model
People form parasocial relations when they have a weak sense of identity and an individual finds their own life deficient so they follow a celebrity as a source of fulfilment. Closely linked with levels of parasocial relations, first level is absorption and if it becomes addictive they may move onto the second stage.
Absorption: individual becomes absorbed in following a celebrity (relationship is a form of escapism)
Addiction: individual becomes more and more obsessed with the celebrity which can lead to extreme behaviour like stalking, usually happens from poor mental health or some sort of crisis
Strengths of the Parasocial Models
Maltby (2001) found a connection between parasocial relations and mental health. Pptts who engaged in parasocial relations were found to be functioning less well psychologically than those who didn’t. Also found a positive correlation between levels of anxiety and depression and frequency of more extreme parasocial relations which matches the models predictions.
The model explains why most people do form relations even at entertainment level and why only a small minority develop further levels.
Weaknesses of the Parasocial Models
This model has been criticised for ignoring the positive aspects of being fan (like being in a social group) and for stigmatising people who form parasocial relations by linking their behaviour to poor mental health. The studies which support the absorption addiction model don’t show that poor psychological functioning causes it but just that the two correlate. Studies supporting this model have tended to be done in western countries, making it ethnocentric and not generalised to other cultures
Attachment Styles in relation to PSR
Anxious-ambivalent: most likely to form PSRs, they have concern that others will not reciprocate their desire for intimacy, they turn to TV characters to satisfy ‘unmet relational needs’
Anxious avoidant: least likely, they find it difficult to develop relations and are very unlikely to seek them from real or fictional people.
Secure attachment: not likely, often have satisfactory real-life relations and don’t seek additional ones with celebs
Evaluation of SET
Pros: explains why we may form and/or terminate relationships due to costs and benefits and alternatives. Can explain individual differences in attraction as different people perceive costs and benefits differently
Cons: oversimplifies complex human relationships. Ignored equality in relationships. People don’t tend to act rationally and think about pros and cons or look for alternatives while in a relationship
Evaluation of filter theory
Pros: Winch (1958) found similarities of personality, interests and attitudes are typical in the earliest stages of relationships.
Cons: many studies have failed to replicate the original findings, rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables, FT suggests people are initially attracted to eachother because they are similar
Evaluation of evolutionary reproduction
Singh (2002) identified waist-to-hip ratio as a universally major determinant of attractiveness. Used data from past years of beauty contest winners, ratio is associated with fertility, optimum-0.7
Presumes heterosexuality. Cannot explain why couples choose not to have children as it assumes all relations are motivated by the desire to reproduce. Ignores social and cultural influences, women no longer depend on men for resources
Matching Hypothesis Theory
- Attractive people expect an attractive partner
- Couples who are equally matched are happier
Filter Theory- Study
Kerchkoff and Davis (1962)- Model came from a study into long term relationships. Surveyed female uni students and their male partners who were considering marriage, 7months later did a follow up study to see how the relationship progressed. Found for couples under 18months if they had similar values they were more likely to progress but for couples over 18months it was those who had complementary needs. However this study was replicated across other uni’s and they found no significant difference overtime in either sharing values or having complementary needs
Social Penetration Theory
Altman and Taylor (1973)- Relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone. Involves reciprocal exchange of each others lives. Two elements to the idea is breadth and depth. Use an onion metaphor to explain this, low risk info is revealed early and high risk as the relationship progresses.
Factors influencing the relationship between disclosure and attraction
Appropriateness of disclosure- sometimes its inappropriate like on a first date could suggest the individual is lacking in social skills which some people see as important.
Attributions for disclosure- less attraction occurs to people who disclose to everyone but more attraction if disclosed to fewer special people.
Sex differences- females generally seen as better communicators of and more interested in intimate info, so disclosure from males may be seen as rewarding for females, as its ‘less appropriate’.
Content for disclosure- attraction is strongest when self-disclosure is of moderate intimacy and weak when too high or low
Negative of self disclosure and social penetration theory
Cultural differences, Tang (2013) reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men/women in USA disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than men/women in China.
Too reductionist, unlikely that attractiveness would be reliant purely on level of self disclosure
Three main reasons why people break up, plus some extras (Ducks phase model)
Pre-existing doom, Mechanical failure, Sudden death
lack of skill, lack of motivation, lack of maintenance
