Relationships Flashcards
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: who developed the theory of sexual selection and summarise it
Darwin developed the theory of sexual selection. this is the idea that favoured male characteristics are subsequently more frequently represented in later generations.
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: what is anisogamy?
this refers to the differences between male and female sex cells. Male’s sperm are produced throughout a mans lifetime, however, female gametes are only produced for a period of time which is limited for the famle in terms of reproduction. consequently, this leads to two types of sexual selection: intrasexual and intersexual selection.
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: what is intrasexual selection?
this occurs WITHIN each sex and is based on strategies used by males to be selected. individuals in one sex must compete with others to gain access to the opposite sex. those who are successful in competing reproduce and pass on their genes. characteristics that are successful in the male contests such as greater strength, size, and cunning become widespread in the gene pool due to reproduction. males’ reproductive strategy is quantity over quality - mate with as many females as possible. In contrast, the female reproductive strategy is quality over quantity because women have to make biological in having a child.
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: what is intersexual selection?
this occurs BETWEEN the sexes, it is the strategies that males use to select females or vice versa. members of one sex evolve preferences for desirable qualities in potential mates. those who possess the qualities such as attractiveness, status and resources will then gain the mating advantage over those who don’t. therefore, the preferences of one sex determine the areas in which the other sex must compete.
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: sexual selection and long-term mate preferences
the rationale behind sexual selection is that random mating is stupid mating, as the genetic quality of a mate will determine half of the genetic quality of the offspring.
Females: according to Buss, they will be more attracted to males able to invest resources into her and her children, physically able to protect them, and show promise as a good parent.
Males: males are attracted to females who display signs of fertility (youthful and healthy).
evolutionary explanations for partner preferences: evaluation
Buss’s study explored the traits that males and females prioritize in long-term partners across 37 cultures, involving over 10,000 participants. The results revealed distinct gender differences in preferences: women were more likely to prioritize financial support and resources, valuing qualities like ambition and industriousness. In contrast, men placed greater importance on physical attractiveness, as it offers clues to a woman’s health and fertility. Both sexes, however, agreed on the importance of intelligence, seeing it as an indicator of potential parenting abilities. This demonstrates how sexual selection plays a crucial role in mate choice, as choosing the right partner ensures the continuation of our genes.
Bernstein challenges the idea that mate preferences are purely evolved traits, proposing that they might instead stem from cultural traditions. For example, women in many societies may feel compelled to rely on men’s economic resources because they have historically been denied economic or political power. A study of 37 cultures found that women placed greater importance on men’s resources in cultures where they had limited educational opportunities and lower status. While Buss’s research may point to evolutionary influences on mate preferences, Bernstein’s analysis suggests that socio-economic factors and cultural context also play a significant role in shaping these preferences.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: physical attractiveness
Buss researched partner preferences in different cultures and demonstrated that men do place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate, as it provides clues to a woman’s health, fertility, and reproductive value. However, recent research has emphasised the importance to women of physical attractiveness when choosing a mate. Eastwick et al. stated that physical attractiveness may be important for women when choosing partners in the short term but was less important in ‘serious relationships’.
The halo effect can also operate in physical attractiveness: when we attribute other positive characteristics to physical attractiveness, e.g., someone attractive may also be described as kind and strong. Therefore, the belief that attractive people have these characteristics makes us more attracted to them.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: physical attractiveness - the matching hypothesis
this suggests that when initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek out partners whose social desirability is equal to their own, therefore, when choosing a partner, the individual must first assess their own values in the eyes of a potential partner and select the best available candidates who would most likely be attracted to them. Although the matching hypothesis initially proposed that people would pair up with someone as socially desirable as them in terms of assets, over time it has come to be associated with matching physical attractiveness alone.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: physical attractiveness evaluation
Point: The findings of Walster’s study do not support the matching hypothesis, which suggests that people are more likely to form relationships with others of similar attractiveness. Walster’s study involved 177 males and 170 females who were randomly paired for a ‘computer dance’ based on personality assessments, although the actual pairing was random. The participants were rated for physical attractiveness, and their responses were recorded through follow-up questionnaires. The results showed that, after meeting their dates, participants were more likely to arrange further dates with physically attractive individuals, regardless of their personality or intelligence. This suggests that physical attractiveness plays a more significant role in relationship formation than the matching hypothesis predicts. Therefore, Walster’s study challenges the matching hypothesis by demonstrating that physical attractiveness has a stronger influence on relationship outcomes than similarity in traits like intelligence.
Meltzer’s study provides evidence that physical attractiveness plays a significant role in marital satisfaction, particularly for men.
Meltzer found that husbands whose wives were rated as physically attractive were more satisfied with their marriage, and this correlation remained consistent for at least the first four years. In contrast, the attractiveness of husbands, as rated by their wives, was not linked to marital satisfaction at any point.
This suggests that men place greater importance on their partner’s physical attractiveness, as it is positively related to their happiness in the relationship. However, for women, physical attractiveness seems to be less of a priority when it comes to marital satisfaction. Thus, Meltzer’s findings support the idea that men prioritize physical attractiveness in their partners more than women do, which has implications for understanding gender differences in relationship dynamics.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: filter theory
this theory suggests that we choose a romantic partner by using filters to narrow down the ‘field of availables’ from which we choose our mates. different filters are present at different stages of the relationship.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: filter theory: social demography
During the early stages of a relationship, demographic similarities such as class, religion, age etc are likely to be the most important factor in initiating a relationship. social circumstances reduce the range of people that are realistically available for us to meet; which are already restricted as we are more likely to come into contact with those who live near to us etc. in this initial filtering phase, attraction has more to do with social, rather than individual characteristics.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: filter theory: similarity of attitude
as the relationship develops, similarity of attratide and underlying values become more important in determining whether or not the relationship continues. Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity in attitudes and values was of central importance at the start of a relationship, and the best predictor of the relationship becoming stable: if people have these similarities, it allows easier communication.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: filter theory: complementarity of needs
partners are assessed in terms of whether they are compatible in personality etc. If 2 people have different needs, they will like each other because they provide each other with mutual satisfaction of these needs, so if they find a partner who compliments them, it means their needs will be met. Winch investigated 25 married couples in the US and suggested social needs should be complementary rather than similar for a marriage to work. if one partner was low in one attribute, the other should be high in it meaning their needs are harmonious, rather than conflicting.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: filter theory: evaluation
Kerchkoff and Davis’s longitudinal study supports the filter theory, which suggests that people choose partners based on shared values, attitudes, and complementary needs. The study involved 94 dating couples at Duke University, who completed questionnaires assessing shared attitudes, values, and need complementarity. Seven months later, couples completed a follow-up questionnaire to assess their closeness. Initially, similarity in attitudes and values was linked to partner closeness, but this varied depending on the relationship length. The results indicated that for couples who had been dating for less than 28 months, shared attitudes and values were the most important predictor of closeness. However, for those dating for longer than 18 months, the need for complementarity became the more significant factor. This suggests that the filter theory is valid, as it shows that different factors influence relationship closeness at different stages, with initial similarity giving way to complementary needs as the relationship develops.
Duck suggests that the filtering process is valuable because it allows individuals to predict the potential success of a relationship before becoming too emotionally invested. According to Duck, people use different strategies to gather information about their partner, such as encouraging self-disclosure through questioning or provoking disagreements to uncover true feelings. Based on these responses, individuals can assess whether they should continue the relationship or not. The filtering process helps individuals make informed decisions about relationships by allowing them to evaluate key aspects early on, ensuring they do not invest time or emotion in a relationship that may not work in the long run. Therefore, Duck’s view emphasizes that filtering not only helps people understand their partners better but also prevents unnecessary emotional investment in relationships that are unlikely to succeed.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure
greater disclosure leads to greater feelings of intimacy. people tend to prefer those who disclose intimate details compared to those who don’t. research has distinguished between self-disclosure given (disclosing your own thoughts) and self-disclosure given (receiving intimate information). the level of self-disclosure received in romantic relationships was a better predictor of liking and loving than self-disclosure given.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure: Sprecher
interested in whether reciprocal self-disclosure was more influential in determining attraction than one-sided self-disclosure and listening. PPs were undergraduates at a US university paired into 2 person groups. 2/3 of these groups were female-female and 1/3 male-female. each group of unacquainted individuals engaged in a self-disclosure task over Skype. in the reciprocal condition, members took turns asking questions and disclosing. in the non-reciprocal group, one person asked questions in the first interaction and the other disclosed. In the 2nd interaction, they switched roles. those in the reciprocal condition reported more linking, closeness, and enjoyment of the interaction compared to those in the non-reciprocal group. this showed that turn-taking self-disclosure reciprocity is more likely to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes.
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure evaluation
Collins and Miller’s meta-analysis supports the importance of self-disclosure in the development and maintenance of romantic relationships. The researchers found that individuals who engage in intimate self-disclosures are generally more liked than those who disclose less. Additionally, people tend to like others more when they are the recipients of intimate disclosures. The study also revealed that the relationship between disclosure and liking was stronger when the disclosure was believed to be shared exclusively with the recipient, rather than being indiscriminately shared with others. These findings highlight that self-disclosure not only helps people to form deeper connections but also plays a critical role in relationship-building by fostering trust and intimacy. The perceived exclusivity of the disclosure enhances the feelings of closeness between individuals.
Therefore, Collins and Miller’s research underscores the central role of self-disclosure in fostering mutual attraction and strengthening romantic relationships.
Cultural differences play a significant role in shaping self-disclosure patterns and their impact on attraction. Research by Chen showed that Americans engage in more self-disclosure than Chinese or Japanese individuals, indicating that Western societies tend to disclose more intimately than non-Western cultures. Additionally, Nakanishi found that Japanese women prefer less personal conversation compared to Japanese men, which contrasts with the typical self-disclosure patterns in Western societies, where women are generally more inclined to disclose than men. These cultural differences suggest that the role of self-disclosure in attraction is influenced by cultural norms, which can affect how comfortable individuals feel disclosing personal information and how it is perceived in relationships. Therefore, while self-disclosure is important for attraction, its significance and patterns are moderated by cultural influences, highlighting that the dynamics of relationship development are not universal but vary across cultures.
theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory - profit and loss
Thibaut and Kellet developed the social exchange theory, based on the assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges in which individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. rewards we may receive from a relationship include: companionship, being cared for, sex etc. Costs may include: effort, financial investment, and time wasted.
reward - cost = outcome, which will be an overall profit or loss for the relationship. The social exchange theory emphasises that commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of the outcome.
theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory - comparison level
The Comparison Level (CL) is a personal standard based on past experiences and general expectations, used to evaluate the rewards and costs in a relationship. If a relationship offers more rewards than one’s CL, it’s seen as worthwhile, making the partner attractive. Conversely, if the rewards fall short of the CL, the relationship is seen as less attractive. A person with a lower CL, due to past negative experiences, may tolerate or be satisfied in a poor relationship, while someone with a higher CL, shaped by rewarding past relationships, will have higher expectations for future ones.
theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory - comparison for alternatives
along with how individuals assess the profit to the CL for their satisfaction, there are other factors which will determine if they are to stay in their relationship. One concept is the comparison level for alternatives (CLA). this is where the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner - costs associated with ending the relationship. A new relationship can take the place of the current one if its profit level is higher. An individual will be committed to their current relationship when the overall benefits are perceived as being greater than what might be possible in an alternative relationship or having no relationship. The more rewarding a partner’s alternatives are, the less that individual is dependent upon their current relationship.
theories of romantic relationships: Social Exchange Theory - evaluation
+ The balance between positive and negative exchanges plays a vital role in the success or failure of relationships. Research shows that successful marriages have a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions, while unsuccessful marriages typically have a 1:1 ratio. Additionally, a study by Christensen using Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT) with 60 distressed couples found that two-thirds reported significant improvements in their relationship quality. This highlights the importance of positive behaviour exchanges in maintaining a healthy relationship. IBCT helps couples increase positive interactions and reduce negative ones by breaking harmful behaviour patterns, which in turn enhances relationship satisfaction. This supports the idea that understanding relationship dynamics, as proposed by Social Exchange Theory, can lead to therapeutic approaches that help couples improve their relationships and restore satisfaction.
- One criticism of Social Exchange Theory is the difficulty in clearly defining what constitutes a cost and a benefit in relationships. What one person views as a rewarding behaviour may feel punishing to another, and what is seen as a benefit at one point in the relationship can later become a cost as expectations change.
This subjectivity makes it challenging to categorize interactions as strictly positive or negative. As partners’ perspectives evolve, behaviours or exchanges may no longer align with the original classification of cost or benefit. Therefore, this challenges the theory’s view that romantic relationships can be easily understood as an exchange of clear rewards and costs, as it overlooks the complexities of personal perceptions within a relationship.
theories of romantic relationships: equity theory
this was proposed by Hatfield with the belief that people are haooy when they perceive to be getting roughly what they deserve from a relationship. what they put into the relationship should be equal to what they get out of the relationship. if people feel overbenefitted, they may experience pity, guilt and shame. if people feel under-benefitted, they may experience anger, sadness, and resentment. Hatfield later stated that how couples are concerned about rewarded and equity depends upon the stage of their relationship. For example, at the beginning of the relationship, equity is perceived as important, however, once the couple becomes serious and committed, they become less concerned with day-to-day reward and equity. she states that if people perceive their relationship to be inequitable, then they will be motivated to restore it:
1. restoration of equity: voluntarily setting things right, or urging their partners to do so.
2: restoration of psychological equity: those in inequitable relationships can distort reality and convince themselves things are fair.
3. leave the relationship: divorce or no longer having feelings for their partner.
theories of romantic relationships: equity theory evaluation
- The equity theory assumes that everyone is equally sensitive to equity and inequity, but this is not the case, as different individuals experience inequity differently. Huseman introduced the concept of equity sensitivity, which categorizes people based on their tolerance for inequity. He identified three types: benevolents, who are more tolerant of under-rewarded inequity; equity sensitives, who feel tension when faced with inequity; and entitleds, who expect to be over-rewarded and believe they are owed benefits. This distinction challenges the assumption of the equity theory by showing that individuals vary significantly in how they react to inequity. Benevolents, for example, are more accepting of being under-rewarded, while entitleds have the opposite expectation. Therefore, equity sensitivity accounts for the differing responses individuals have to perceived inequity, making it a more nuanced understanding of the theory. As a result, Huseman’s work suggests that the equity theory might not fully capture the complexities of human behaviour in response to equity and inequity, and further research into equity sensitivity is necessary for a more accurate application of the theory.
+ Stafford and Canary’s research supports the equity theory by showing that perceived equity in relationships is linked to higher satisfaction and the use of relationship maintenance strategies. In their study, over 200 married couples were asked about equity and relationship satisfaction. They found that spouses who perceived their relationship as equitable reported higher satisfaction. Specifically, under-benefitted husbands used fewer relationship maintenance strategies than equitable or over-benefitted husbands, suggesting that satisfaction and maintenance efforts are closely tied to equity. This finding aligns with the equity theory, which suggests that people who feel treated equitably in relationships are more satisfied and thus more likely to engage in behaviors that maintain that equity, such as using maintenance strategies like assurances, sharing tasks, and positivity. Under-benefitted spouses, on the other hand, felt less satisfied and were less inclined to contribute to maintaining the relationship. Therefore, Stafford and Canary’s study reinforces the idea that equity plays a significant role in marital satisfaction, highlighting the relevance of the equity theory in understanding relationship dynamics.
theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - what is it?
proposed by Rusbult in the 1980s. It focuses on why people persist in some relationships but not others. It works on the principle that it’s not just satisfaction that maintains a relationship but also investment and a lack of alternatives. It incorporates four areas: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, investment, and commitment.
theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - satisfaction level
this refers to the positive vs the negative emotions within a relationship and is influenced by the extent to which the other person fulfils the individual’s most important needs.
theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - comparison with alternatives
this refers to the ectent to which an individuals most important needs might be better fulfilled outside the current relationship. if a person perceives an attractive alternative that might provide superior outcomes to those experienced in the current relationship, might lead to an individual towards that alternative and away from their current relationship. if alternatives aren’t available, an individual may persist with a relationship because of a lack of better options. or, having no relationship may be seen as a more attractive option than staying in the current relationship.
Theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - investment size
the investment size also contributes toward the stability of the relationship. Investment size is a measure of all the resources that are attached to the relationship and would lower in value or be lost completely if the relationship were to end. People invest time, money and energy and will have given things of value to each other. The idea of such investments is that they create foundations for a lasting relationship, investments will increase dependence in the relationship as they increase connections with the partner that would be costly to break.
theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - commitment level
this is the likelihood that an involvement will persist. commitment is high in romantic partners who are happy in their relationships, they have high levels of satisfaction. these would anticipate very little gain and a high level of loss if they were to leave the relationship. when people are satisfied with their relationship, feel tied to it because of their investments or have no suitable alternatives, they become dependent on that relationship. thus, commitment is a consequence of increasing dependence.
theories of romantic relationships: Rusbult’s Investment Model - evaluation
+ Rusbult’s Investment Model has strong real-world applicability, particularly in explaining why individuals may stay in unhealthy relationships. Victims of partner abuse often experience low satisfaction, which would typically suggest they would leave the relationship. However, Rusbult’s model explains that factors such as a lack of alternatives and significant prior investments can make leaving more difficult. Research by Rusbult and Martz found that these factors strongly predicted whether individuals residing in shelters remained committed to or returned to their abusive partners.
This suggests that commitment in relationships is not solely based on satisfaction but also on the perceived cost of leaving. Victims may feel that they have invested too much time, effort, or resources into the relationship, making separation seem too costly. Additionally, a lack of viable alternatives may further discourage them from leaving. These findings support the Investment Model’s claim that commitment is influenced not only by satisfaction but also by alternatives and investments, helping to explain why individuals may remain in harmful relationships.
+ Commitment is a key indicator of relationship satisfaction and longevity. Le et al. conducted a meta-analysis using data from 38,000 participants across 137 studies over 33 years to examine factors influencing relationship stability. Their findings showed that a lack of commitment was a strong predictor of relationship dissolution. This suggests that individuals who feel less committed to their partners are more likely to end their relationships. Other factors, such as satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size, were found to be weaker predictors of whether a relationship would last. These findings support Rusbult’s Investment Model, which emphasizes that commitment, along with satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment, plays a crucial role in relationship maintenance.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - what are the 5 phases?
breakdown
intrapsychic phase
dyadic phase
social phase
grave dressing phase
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - breakdown
this is the 1st phase of relationship breakdown and it begins when one partner becomes distressed with how the relationship is going. it is often linked to the partner feeling inequitable, causing them to become dissatisfied. the person may then be unwilling to continue with the dissatisfaction, thinking they can’t stand the relationship anymore.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - intrapsychic phase
feelings of dissatisfaction lead to the intrapsychic phase which is characterised by a brooding focus on the relationship. The person may consider whether they might be better off out of the relationship. they may feel burdened by feelings of resentment and a sense of being underbenefitted. During this phase, the individual may not say anything about their dissatisfaction to their partner but express discontentment in other ways such as becoming socially withdrawn and may even end the relationship without telling the partner.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - dyadic phase
The individual will confront the partner and begin to discuss their feelings, their discontentment and the future of the relationship. From such discussions, feelings of anger and resentment may arise. this phase can also reveal that their partner may have issues to raise within the relationship. At this phase, the couple may think about the things they have invested into the relationship such as children and finances, and the costs that would occur from terminating the relationship such as social and economic costs. if both partners are motivated to resolve the relationship, the break up may be avoided, and they may seek marital therapy. however, they could begin to involve others in the dissatisfaction of the relationship.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - the social phase
this involves a personal issue becoming social as the problems in the relationship are being shared with family and friends, largely meaning the dissolution of the relationship is inevitable. it now becomes harder to deny that there is a problem in the relationship and it makes reconciliation harder to achieve. family and friends may begin to take sides, offer advice or help resolve disputes.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown - the grave dressing phase
once they have left their relationship, people will attempt to justify their actions. people will construct a representation of the failed relationship that doesn’t make their contribution to it unfavourable. La Gaipa states that every person who leaves a relationship has to do so with their social credit intact dor future use so the aren’t isolated from future relationships.
theories of romantic relationships: Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown evaluation
Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown can be supported by his later work with Rollie, which further developed the original model. Duck criticized his initial model for failing to recognize the potential positive consequences of relationship dissolution, such as personal growth. To address this, he and Rollie introduced a final phase called the ‘resurrection processes.’ This phase suggests that individuals can move beyond the distress of a breakup and experience personal growth. Supporting this idea, psychologists conducted a study on 92 undergraduates who had recently ended a romantic relationship. The results indicated that, while participants experienced emotional distress, they also reported personal growth. This evidence reinforces the idea that relationship breakdown is not solely negative but can also lead to self-improvement, validating Duck and Rollie’s expanded model.
Duck’s theory of relationship breakdown emphasizes the importance of communication in understanding and addressing relationship issues. By analyzing what individuals say, the topics they discuss, and how they talk about their relationships, we can gain insight into their thoughts and feelings. This understanding can also help identify ways in which external support, such as family and friends, may intervene. This has real-life applications, as Duck’s research can be used to help couples repair their relationships or, if a breakup is inevitable, navigate it positively. For example, during the intrapsychic phase, repair strategies may involve re-establishing affection for a partner by re-evaluating their behaviour more positively. In the social phase, family and friends can aid in relationship repair by avoidingdamagingg comments about the partner. This highlights the practical benefits of Duck’s theory, demonstrating how an understanding of relationship breakdown can be applied to real-life situations to support individuals in maintaining or managing the end of their relationships.
