Relationships Flashcards
Relationships
Evolutionary explanations of behaviour - help humans to adapt better to environment natural selection or help attract mate have healthy offspring
Self disclosure
Idea that relationship is built on trust with another
- Gradually revealing personal information e.g thoughts feelings experiences values more intimacy more satisfaction revel
Social penetration theory
- Altman & Taylor 1973
- Gradually revealing emotions experiences listening to each other more trust
- 2 dimensions breadth & depth
- Onion metaphor
- Altman and Taylor 1st described process of self disclosure as peeling layers of onion which had breadth and depth
- People share choice info at first tastes biographical data just enough detail to keep happy breadth depth narrow as u build trust these increase
- Breadth e.g work family lobbies
- Depth details covering each of these areas both increase as trust made more intimate
Reciprocity
- Reis and shaver 1988 want same response disclosure from both sides but if not has negative effect as not receive anything so trust Goes
- So need balance this makes more intimacy
Evaluation
Research Support
- Sprecher +Hendrick (2004) found in heterosexual relationships, was a strong link between self-disclosure+satisfaction for both partners. Those who shared personal thoughts feelings—and believed their partner did same—felt happier more committed. Further support comes from Sprecher et al. (2013), who found relationships tend to be closer and more satisfying when partners take turns self-disclosing (reciprocity). findings strengthen the theory because they suggest that self-disclosure plays role improving relationships. If research consistently finds this link, it adds credibility
means idea sharing personal information leads to stronger relationships well-supported by evidence, making self-disclosure theory more valid.
Counterpoint
However, a weakness of these studies is that they only show correlation, not causation.
For example, while Sprecher and Hendrick found that greater self-disclosure linked to higher relationship satisfaction, doesn’t mean self-disclosure directly causes happiness. could be other factors at play—perhaps people who are already happy in their relationships feel more comfortable sharing personal information. Or maybe couples who spend more time together naturally have more opportunities to self-disclose.If self-disclosure is simply a result of satisfaction rather than a cause, then the theory may not be as valid as it seems. It’s possible that the real reason for stronger relationships lies elsewhere, such as time spent together or existing emotional connection.means we should be cautious when assuming that self-disclosure is the main factor behind relationship satisfaction. More research is needed to establish a cause-and-effect link.
Real-World Application
real-life benefits for improving relationships.
Research by Haas and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of gay lesbian couples said that open and honest self-disclosure was key to maintaining their relationships. suggests being able to share personal thoughts and feelings is an important factor in relationship success. Additionally, people who struggle with deep conversations (e.g., those who mainly rely on small talk) can be taught to self-disclose, potentially helping them strengthen their relationships.research is useful because it shows that understanding self-disclosure can help couples improve their communication. If people are aware that sharing personal thoughts and feelings can build intimacy, they might make a conscious effort to do so, leading to happier relationships.highlights how psychological research can have a practical impact, offering valuable advice for those wanting to improve their relationships.
Cultural Differences
However, self-disclosure may not have the same effect in all cultures.
Nu Tang et al. (2013) found that in individualist cultures, such as the US, people tend to disclose more about their sexual experiences. However, in collectivist cultures like China, sexual self-disclosure is much lower. Interestingly, despite these differences, relationship satisfaction levels were the same in both cultures.suggests that self-disclosure, particularly about certain topics like sex, may not be as important for relationship satisfaction in some cultures as it is in others. It challenges the idea that deep and open communication is always necessary for a strong relationship.means that while self-disclosure theory may be useful in Western societies, it might not apply as well to other cultures, so we should be careful about assuming it works the same way everywhere.
Physical attractiveness
• first draws a couple together: each partner finds the physical appearance of their mate to be pleasing further motivates couple to spend more time together
o The babyface hypothesis (Berry & MacArthur, 1986) people are drawn to the appealing, unthreatening features of babies e.g. large eyes, soft skin, blemish-free appearance act as social releasers prompting nurture and feelings of protectiveness in the observer
o Attractive children adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them (Langlois et al. 2001)
o Facial configurations which closely resemble the population mean and which have symmetry, dimorphism (i.e. a female face looks identifiably feminine), and youthfulness tend to be preferred across cultures as this may signal the ability to develop normally whatever environmental conditions are present
• Being found physically attractive can have wide-ranging, long-term benefits from being less lonely, less socially anxious and more popular (Feingold, 1992); attractive people may also receive less harsh punishments in a court of law than unattractive people (Zebrowitz & McDonald, 2001)
Halo effect
what is beautiful is good’ stereotype
• by Dion et al. (1972) to describe the array of positive personal qualities, traits and skills that are attributed to good-looking people
• occurs when a good-looking person is thought to be more sociable, kind, intelligent, interesting; in short they are deemed to be socially desirable
• outside of gender, age and cultural parameters: it appears to be a universal construct e.g. students from the USA and Korea found good-looking people to be more friendly and trustworthy than those deemed unattractive Kim (1997)
•influence of entertainment such as Disney films, perpetuates the stereotype that beauty equals goodness e.g. heroes and heroines are attractive; ‘baddies’ are generally ‘ugly’ (large hooked noses, hunched backs, bad skin, crooked features)
• type of cognitive bias as it involves generalising conclusions forming an impression about a good-looking person based only on their attractiveness and on no other available information
Matching hypothesis
• Walster, 1966) people tend to pair up with partners who are of roughly the same level of attractiveness as they themselves are
• is a cognitive mechanism that uses self-rating and rating of others based solely on physical appearance e.g. ‘I think I rate as a level 7 so I’m looking for another 7, ideally an 8; but I may have to settle for a 6’
• as to self-worth and self-esteem i.e. if your partner is deemed to be ‘ugly’ then this will affect your social standing but if your partner is a ‘looker’ then your social status will rise: either outcome will have an effect on how you view yourself (as worthy or not worthy)
• There is a fine balancing act involved in the matching hypothesis: someone must weigh up their chances of aiming for someone ‘out of their league’ - and risk rejection, or decide to take the ‘any port in a storm’ option and simply ‘settle’ for a partner who is less attractive than them
Reasearch in attractiveness
• Aharon et al. (2001) - fMRI scans showed that dopamine-rich areas of the brain are activated when males are shown pictures of beautiful female faces
• Cunningham (1986) - baby-faced female features (small nose, large eyes, small chin, large smile) were positively correlated with levels of attractiveness by males who also demonstrated a higher tendency to to perform acts of prosocial behaviour towards these attractive females
• Dion et al. (1972) - participants consistently rated photos of attractive people more favourably than less attractive people; the attractive people were imbued with positive qualities and life outcomes such as marital happiness and career success
• Walster et al. (1966) - researchers found no support for their hypothesis that people will only date those of a similar level of attraction: the best predictor of someone being asked out on a date is how attractive that person is, regardless of the level of attraction of the person asking them
Evaluation
Support : Cunningham (1986) - baby-faced female features (small nose, large eyes, small chin, large smile) were positively correlated with levels of attractiveness by males who also demonstrated a higher tendency to to perform acts of prosocial behaviour towards these attractive females- evolutionary explanation
Halo: • There is some predictive validity in the halo effect: Landy & Sigall (1975) found that essays written by attractive schoolchildren were graded higher than those written by unattractive schoolchildren
W- • Taylor et al. (2011) investigated matching hypothesis using activity logs of an online dating site which revealed that people do not necessarily apply the matching hypothesis when it comes to dating decisions, professing a preference for the most attractive males/females on the site
• Notions of ‘what is attractive?’ are highly subjective and prone to individual differences which means that associated theories lack scientific validity
a nomothetic approach to understanding behaviour as it uses large samples to determine the extent to which self-rating and rating of others is a factor in forming a relationship.
May suffer from a beta bias as they assume no real differences between the ways in which men and women view physical attractiveness
Filter theory
- Kerckoff and Davi’s 1962 how romantic relationships form and develop
- Start by looking at all options have criteria narrow it down
- Field of available and desirables
- Comparedattitdutes of short term relationships compared to long
- Call criteria filters
- Diffent criteria important at different times
- Filtered to produce desirable parterns
3 filters - Social demography
- Similarity in attitudes
- Complementarity
Social demography
- Physical proximity social class religion social class
- More in common so hope to move forward
- Factors that influence the chances of people meeting in the first place.
- people are more likely to build relationships with geographically close and access to them meeting frequently, as this gives them a greater chance to find out more about one another.
- People also find similarities in education, social class and religious beliefs attractive, as this gives them assurance that relationships are more likely to move forward because you have more in common
- Anyone too different is discounted
Similarity attitudes
- Same core beliefs values important at early stage self disclosure increase
- If not communication limited
- Byrne (1997) noted that similarity of attitudes is especially important in earlier stages of relations , for couples who have been together fewer than 18 months.
- Presence or absence of similarities is discovered through self-disclosure, which leads to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple. If partners have very little in common, however, relationships rarely develop beyond the first few dates.
Complementary
Complementarity
- Fulfil their needs one outgoing one quiet one can cook other can’t opposite attracts
- Strengthen bond
Evaluation
research support for filter theory. Winch (1957) found similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples in beginning of relationships, and complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships.Newcomb (1961) offered participants free accommodation for a year were assigned a room mate found that stable friendship developed if roommates had a similar background and similar attitudes to life.Such studies support the predictions of filter theory and improve its validity
failed to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ original findings.
Levenger (1974) claim that this may be due to the difficulty of correlating length of relationships and depth of relationships.Kerckhoff and Davis set the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months, assuming if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment. However, this doesn’t apply to all heterosexual couples, nor does it describe experience of homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures. Some couples take much longer than 18 month to establish a similarity of attitudes and complementarity, while others skip sociodemographic filters altogether and feel ready to commit to long-term relationships earlier than 18 month cut-off point.These experiences can’t be explained by the Filter Theory, suggesting that other factors (e.g. the type of relationship) play a significant role in the initiation and development of relationships.
One limitation is that complementarity may not be central to all longer-term relationships.
A prediction of filter theory is that in the most satisfying relationships partners are complementary, for example one partner may have a need to be dominant and the other a need to be submissive.
However, Patrick Markey and Charlotte Markey (2013) found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied. Their sample of couples had been romantically involved for a mean time of more than 4½ years.
This suggests that similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples.
Another limitation is actual similarity matters less than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar.
meta-analysis of 313 studies by Matthew Montoya et al. (2008).found that actual similarity affected attraction only in short-term lab-based interactions. In real-world relationships, perceived similarity stronger predictor of attraction.
partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other.perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not a cause, which is not predicted by the filter model.
Most individualistic but collectivist romance arranged so doesn’t apply
Social exchange theory
- Economic theory of relationships
- People in relationship seek exchange seek to give and receive goods
- But still indpdndnat
- Thibault and Kelly 1959
- Minimal principle
- Saitsifcation profit gained
- Reward = sex companionship emotional support
- Cost = time stress energy compromise
- Opportunity cost = investment in A means you cannot invest in B
- But this is subjective
- Measuring profit relationships Cl comparison level how much reward they think they deserve in relationship impacted by culture and previous relationships films self esteem info doesn’t meet than not satisfactory
- CLalt comparison leve for alternatives – measures of profit involve wide context
- Could I get more profit at less cost somewhere else
- We believe our relationship is more profitable than the alternatives
- Duck 1994 the calt we adopt depends on state of our current relationships compare alternatives for current
- Only see others when not happy
Stages of development
Sampling stage
- Exploring costs benefits of relationship by experimenting or observing
Bargaining stage
- Beginning of relationship social exchange see cost profit
Commitment stage
- Cost rewards become predictable rewards increase costs lessen familiar with expectations
Insitutionisation stage
- Partner settled in terms of relationship cost benefits now established
Evaluation
Research Support
Social Exchange Theory (SET) is that research supports its key ideas.Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring their relationship commitment and SET factors.found that partners who were most committed also saw their relationship as offering the most rewards and the fewest costs. also found alternatives less attractive. Most importantly, this study showed that commitment is based on individual assessments of rewards and costs rather than being dependent on the partner’s perspective.findings support the predictions made by SET, adding to its validity. Since the results were consistent across different types of relationships, it suggests that SET applies broadly, making it a strong explanation for commitment in relationships.means that SET has a solid research foundation, reinforcing the idea that people stay in relationships when they feel they are getting more benefits than costs.
Counterpoint
SET overlooks the role of equity, which may be a more important factor in relationships.
Kurdek’s study, and others like it, ignore the idea that people don’t just care about their own rewards and costs—they also care about fairness. Research suggests that what really matters in relationships is not just how much you get, but whether both partners see the exchange as fair. The importance of equity has been highlighted by a separate theory (Equity Theory), which better explains how people maintain long-term relationships.If fairness plays a bigger role in relationship satisfaction than personal profit, then SET is limited in its explanation. It fails to account for research showing that couples are often more concerned about fairness than simply maximising their own rewards.suggests that SET may not fully explain relationship commitment, as it misses a key factor that many couples consider essential—fairness.
Direction of Cause and Effect
limitation of SET is that it assumes dissatisfaction happens first, leading people to reassess costs and rewards. However, the reverse may be true.According to SET, people only become unhappy when they realise that the costs of their relationship outweigh the rewards or that better alternatives exist. But Argyle (1987) argued that people don’t constantly monitor their relationships in this way. Instead, they only start weighing up costs and alternatives after they become dissatisfied. When people are happy and committed, they don’t even consider other options.This challenges a core assumption of SET. If dissatisfaction comes first, then SET has the order of events wrong—it’s not that people leave relationships because they calculate costs and rewards, but that they calculate costs and rewards because they are already unhappy.weakens the theory because it suggests that SET may not accurately describe how and why relationships break down.
Vague Concepts
SET is that it relies on vague and subjective concepts that are hard to measure.
In research, rewards and costs have sometimes been measured using money or other tangible factors. However, in real relationships, rewards and costs are much more complex. For example, one person might see their partner’s loyalty as rewarding, while another might not. Similarly, the idea of a ‘comparison level’—where people judge whether they could do better in another relationship—is hard to define and measureSince different people value different things, it’s difficult to create a universal way to measure rewards, costs, and comparison levels. This makes SET hard to test scientifically, as there’s no clear way to determine if someone is accurately weighing up their relationship.makes SET less reliable as a theory, as its key ideas are difficult to define in a way that applies to everyone.
Inappropriate Central Assumptions
A final issue with SET is that it assumes all relationships work like economic transactions, which isn’t always the case.
SET suggests that people constantly assess whether they are getting enough rewards in return for what they give. However, Clark and Mills (2011) argue that this might apply to business or casual relationships but not to romantic ones. In close relationships, partners don’t ‘keep score’ in the same way, as doing so would damage trust and intimacy. This suggests that SET may be too simplistic. While some aspects of exchange might occur in relationships, most people do not consciously calculate every cost and benefit. Relationships are often built on mutual care rather than strict exchanges.challenges SET’s basic idea that relationships function like financial transactions, meaning it may not fully explain how real relationships work.
Equity theory
- Extension of social exchange theory
- People more content in their relationship if benefits are roughly equal to costs
- Relationships that lack equity more leikly to be associated with iddatisfcation
- Fairness
- Partner A benefits – cost = to B benefits – costs
- Both profit roughly same
- Subjective
- Lack equity if one partner over benefiting = dissatisfaction either way who is over = guilt other feel angry sad more likely breach up
- Equity not same as equality = fairness e.g disabled negociations compromise
- At start putting more Normal but not in long term
- How to deal the under benefit restore equity
- Congotive ma trick themselves t look profitable
Evaluation
Research support
Utne et al 1984 found couples considered relationships more equitable more satisfied than others 118 18-45
Limitation berg and muquinn 1986 found says precived fairness is either present or no to from start doesn’t develop with time in contrast to what the equity theory says . This was a longtiudinal study but self disclosures strong indication
Individual differences
- Hussman et al 1987 people who are less sensitive to inequity and prepared to give more in relationships
- Other entitleds believe they deserve to over benefit form relationships and don’t feel too guilty
A problem with many theory’s about romantic relationships is that they use a nomothetic approach.
Equity Theory, like other theories within the relationships topic, proposes a universal theory of romantic relationships that suggests that people are content in their relationship if the benefits equal the costs.
However, Mills & Clarke (1982) argue that it is not possible to assess equity in terms of loving relationships, as a lot of the input is emotional and unquantifiable.
Consequently, it may be better to study romantic relationships using an idiographic approach which focuses on the qualitative experiences of individuals, rather than employing a nomothetic approach to generate universal laws for human relationships.
Rusbult et al investment model 2011
- Suggest success of romantic relationships based on commitment
- Commitment = intention or desire to continue a relationship reflecting belief that the relationship has a viable long term future
- Commitment depends on satisfaction comparison with alternatives investment
- Satisfaction = based on comparison level cost reward getting more sex companionship etc
- Comparison with e=alternative based on CLalt
- Investimaent = what lose if end relationship CL AND CLalt not enough
- Material and non self disclosure
- Extinisxc = hosue chidlren
- Memories
Continued
Satisfaction vs. Commitment
• Commitment key factor keeps people in romantic relationships, while satisfaction is only a contributing factor (Rusbult et al., 2011).
• explains why dissatisfied partners may still stay in a relationship—they remain committed to their partner.
• Commitment is strong because partners have made investments they don’t want to waste.
• As result, work hard to maintain and repair the relationship, especially during rough patches.
Relationship Maintenance Mechanisms
• Commitment leads to everyday maintenance behaviors that help sustain relationships.
• Accommodation – Partners avoid retaliating and instead promote the relationship.
• Willingness to sacrifice – prioritize their partner’s needs over their own.
• Forgiveness – forgive serious transgressions to keep the relationship intact.
• Cognitive factors also play a role:
• Committed partners have positive illusions – they see their partner in an unrealistically positive way.
• devalue alternatives – they see potential new partners or other relationships as less appealing.
• may even ridicule alternatives, reinforcing their commitment by putting down other relationship options.
• These mechanisms are much stronger in highly committed partners compared to less committed ones.
Evaluation
Research support
support from a meta analysis by Le and Agnew (2003).
reviewed 52 studies, from the late 19th century. to 1999, which together included around 11,000 participants from five countries. found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment.
Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted the longest.
These outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures in the analysis, and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.
This suggests there is a validity to Rusbul’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships
Counter
However, although strong correlations have been found between all the important
unfortunaiy corelaenal reseach does notalow us te canduc hat the facors
identiffed by the model cause commitment in a relationship.
It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make in the reiationship, so the direction of causality may be the reverse of that suggested by the model.
Therefore it is not dear that the model has identifed the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
Too simplistic
A final limitation of the model is that it views investment in a simplistic one-dimensional way.
Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship, as in the early stages of a relationship partners will have made very few actual investments.
The model therefore has been extended to include the investment partners plan on making in ion
the future. They are motivated to commit to each other because they want to see their cherished plans for the future work out.
This means the original model is limited because it fails to recognize the true complexity of ortant investment, especially how planning for the future influences commitment
Ducks phase model
- 2007 stages before over
- 4 stages of breakdown
1. Intrapsychic stage = why dissatisfied internal thought process
2. Dyadic = confrontation alternatives self disclclosure as angry may want to break or repair lack equity may be reason
3. Social = Involve others
4. Grave dressing stage = making yourself look good
Evaluation
Real life application
it not only helps is to identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown but also suggests various ways of reversing it, which could be highly beneficial in relationships counselling.is especially useful because it recognises that different repair strategies are more effective at particular points in the breakdown than others.
For example, Duck (1994) recommends that people in the intra - psychic phase could be encouraged to focus their brooding on the positive aspects of their partner. Also, as a feature of the dyadic phases communication, any attempt to improve this and perhaps improve wider social skills could be beneficial in fostering greater stability in the relationship. Neither of these strategies is likely to be of much use in the later phases of the breakdown.
This shows that ducks model of relationship breakdown can we used successfully to help couples contemplating breakup to improve their relationships and stay together.
Methods issue
A limitation of most of the research examining relationship breakdown is based on retrospective data, using questionnaires or interviews to ask participants about the break-up some time after it happened.
People’s memories of the event may not be accurate, and may also be coloured by their current Situation, which means that their answers are not reliable. It is usually the very early stages of breakdown that tend to the most distorted or ignored altogether.
Unfortunately it is almost impossible to study the point at which problems first appear. Researchers are very reluctant to study relationships at this early point because their involvement could make things worse, and even hasten the end of the relationship that might otherwise have been rescued.
This means that part of Duck’s model is based on research that ignores this early part of the process so is an incomplete description of how relationships end.
Incomplete model
According to Rollie and Duck (2006) the original of breakdown is oversimplified.
They modified the model and added in a fifth phase - the resurrection phrase, in which ex-partners turn their attention to future relationships, using the experiences gained from their recently ended one.
Existence of the resurrection stage was supported by Tashiro and Frazier (2003), who found that participants (undergraduates who had recently experienced a break-up) reported experiencing personal growth as a result of it, as well as emotional distress. Furthermore they make it clear that progression through the stages is not inevitable and it is possible to return to an earlier stages at any point rather than assuming linear progression from one phase to the next.
These changes overcomes the original weaknesses of the model including the fact that it does not account for the dynamic nature of break-ups with all their inherent uncertainty and complexity.
Cultures
A problem with the model is that it is based on relationships from individualist cultures, where ending the relationships is a voluntary choice, and separation and divorce are easily obtainable and do not carry stigma.
However, this may not be the case in collectivist cultures.
In such cultures, relationships are sometimes arranged by wider family members, and characterised by greater family involvement. This makes the relationship difficult to end, which means that the break-up process will not follow the phases proposed by Duck.
As a result, Duck’s model is culturally biased as it assumes that break-up process is universal, which is clearly not the case.
Virtual relationships
- Electronic communisation methods by which relationships can be formed and maintained email messaging social media
- Self disclosure revel info trust build
Reduced cue theory - Virtual relationships less effective lack of cues
- Sproull and kisler 1986 less festive lack ques we depend on physical appearance tone voice
- Facial expression
- Deinviduation – reduction in persons sense of individual identity which encourages disinhibition in relating to others communication in aggressive way
- Unlikely self disclosure
Hyper personal model - Walter 1996 2011 says more intimate involve more self disclosure as happens more earlier
- Excitement w
- Have control what to say cab be hyper honest or dishonest feedback encouragement
- Anonymity = bargh et al 2002 anonymity people have in online similar to strangers on train effect as feel less accountable for behaviour so who cares what u tell them
Absence of gating - Have less gates physical elements any enlment stop relationship
- Bargh and McKenna 1999 stoop judge book by cover with consequences but could deceive people
