Relationships Flashcards
Results of study supported evolutionary explanations for sexual selection. E.g women want good financial prospects and men want physical attractiveness
Buss (1989)
Study supporting differences in intersexual selection and intra sexual selection. uni students - majority of men were willing to have sexual liason with random but no women were willing
Clark and Hatfield
Study showing that self disclosure was higher across US and Japanese cultures in romantic relationships - supporting that it affects attraction in romantic relationships.
Kito (2005)
People who are less physically attractive are 22% more likely to be convicted than more physically attractive - suggesting existence of Halo Effect
Gunnel and Ceci (2010)
Study finding that real pairs are more similar in physical attractiveness than fake pairs.
Confirmed by field study where higher degree of physical attractiveness, more intimacy showed
Murstein (1972)
Silverman (1971)
Random pairing of students at dance - physical attractiveness deemed to be most accurate predictor of whether they see each other again and whether they liked their date. Not similarity of attractiveness but pure attractiveness
Walster et al (1966)
Proximity of opportunities to meet on daily basis led to increased chance to develop relationships.
50% of Citizens in columbus OHIO were married to someone who initially lived within walking distance - importance of proximity
85% of Americans married to someone of same ethnicity
Studies Supporting Social Demography
Festinger (1950)
Clark (1952)
Taylor et al
Many cultures and sub-cultures where arranged marriage is common. Suggests cultural differences for where filter theory cannot explain relationships
Moghadden (1993)
Study supporting SET where increases in rewards led to better satisfaction. Suggesting rewards must exceed costs for continuation of r’ship.
Rasbalt & Zembradt (1983)
Argument that SET acts as justification for dissatisfaction that is already in R’ship and is not necessarily the cause of dissatisfaction.
Argyle (1987)
Women in Domestic Violence refuge: those more likely to go back to abusive partner had invested more into relationship - suggesting that SET cannot explain individual differences in relationships.
Rasbalt & Martz (1955)
Those that perceived inequity in r’ship had low satisfaction, however most motivated to get back to equitable state.
Dainton - supporting equity theory.
Cross cultural study finding that equitable couples performed most maintenance activities in all cultures. Supporting idea that equity theory leads to most satisfaction and want to continue r’ship
Yum et al
Most people in R’ships do not immediately think in terms of rewards and ratios as if they do the relationship is already in trouble. Therefore other variables may force you to think about fairness in r;ship
Clark (1984)
Meta analysis of 52 studies finding that Investment was the defining feature of stable, long lasting r’ships across all cultures and sexualities
Le and Agnew (2003)
Survey of american and taiwanese students suggesting that feelings of commitment were strongest in couples that had high satisfaction, low comparison for alternatives and high investment. Supporting all 3 elements of rusbults investment model
Lin & Rusbult
Support for Grave Dressing phase of Duck’s model - suggesting previous breakdowns had helped them in future.
Tashiro & Frazier (2003)
Cultural differences in R’ship breakdown, those in individualistic cultures able to divorce but this option is not open to more collectivist cultures due to wider family influences
Moghaddam (1993)
