Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanations - Evolution
Each organism has a set of characteristics encoded by its genes
Inherited from parents
Variations caused by variations in the genotype
Characteristics evolve because they have been passed from one generation to the next
Organisms must : live to reproductive age, mate successfully, ensure the offspring’s survival
What are the different types of selection
Natural - Ability to survive in a particular environment
Sexual - Ability to attract/ find a mate and reproduce successfully, Male cells small, mobile and continuously reproduced, female cells are larger static and produced at intervals for a limited number of years
Separate processes - the characteristics that facilitate reproduction do not necessarily increase survival chances
What is anisogamy
Differences between male and female sex cells, plenty of fertile males but fewer females
This gives rise to different mating strategies
What is intra sexual selection
Males compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex - victors mate and pass on their genes - winning traits are passed on to the next generation
Competition necessary as females are a limited resource
Intra- sexual selection pressures lead to certain patterns of human reproduction behavior - male aggression - the most aggressive male is more likely to reproduce
Males have a preference for youthful and fertile women as it is a sign of fertility which will lead to reproductive success
Inter sexual selection
Females make a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before during after birth
Choosier with males to seek a male who will provide healthy offspring and support them with resources
Preference of both sexes determine attributes are passed on i.e. height
Runaway process - more and more with the attribute would end up being selected
Look for good resources, good genes, good parents
AO3 for evolutionary explanations
+ research support, Singh : Men like women with a low waist to hip ratio, any hips and wait size can be attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other is 0.7 (signs that a female is fertile), evolutionary factors are reflected in patterns of human reproductive behaviour through partner preferences
+ Mate choice in real life, Buss - study of actual marriage confirmed that men do indeed choose younger women, stats show that men who divorce and remarry tend to choose women who are increasingly younger than they are
- Relationships ignore social and cultural influences - Partner preferences impacted by changing social norms and cultural practices, Chang et al = some preferences have changed and others have remained the same over 25 years in China
What is self disclosure ?
The idea that relationship formation is built on trust with another person, which is demonstrated by gradually revealing personal info, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences that they might share with anyone else
More disclosure = greater feelings of intimacy
Jourard - was the first to use this term and showed its important role in the development of romantic relationships
What is social penetration theory
Gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
In romantic relationships it involves the reciprocal exchange of info between partners
When you reveal, it displays trust, to go further the partner must reveal sensitive information
Gain greater understanding of each other
Breadth and depth
As these increase commitment does
We reveal superficial info first
Moving into intimate details later
Breadth is restricted at first some topics are ‘off limits’
As depth increases so can breadth
Self disclosure given
The level of self disclosure received in a romantic relationship was a usually better predictor of liking and loving than the level of disclosure given
Sprecher - Self disclosure positively correlated to relationship stability
Studied 50 couples, degree of disclosure was predictive of whether couples stayed together for longer than 4 yrs
Types of self disclosure/ Norms of self disclosure
Type of information disclose that predicts relationship satisfaction
Sprecher - Disclosure of personal disappointment and accomplishments as well as previous sexual relationships have a greater influence on relationship satisfaction than more neutral info
In the early stage of relationship people should engage in a moderate level of self disclosure
Not so personal to seem indiscriminate to reveal intimate details to a relative stranger, nor so impersonal that the listener is unable to know the person better
Key study for self disclosure
Sprecher - 156 graduate US students
paired into two person dyads to take part in Skype self disclosure task
2/3 dyads female, 1/3 male - female
Reciprocal condition - dyad members took turns asking questions and disclosing
Non reciprocal condition - one person asked questions while the other on disclosed, switched roles (extended reciprocity)
Reciprocal condition - assessments of liking, closeness, perceived similarity and enjoyment were higher than assessments made after the first and second non reciprocal interactions
= Turn taking self disclosure is more likely to lead to positive interpersonal outcomes than extended reciprocity
AO3 for self disclosure
- Cultural differences in patterns of self disclosure, west - people engage with more intimate self disclosure, Chen - Americans disclose more than Chinese and Japanese, cultural norms also shape how comfortable men and women are self disclosing
+ Real life application - help people who want to improve communication, increase intimacy and strengthen bond, Hass and Stafford - 57% of gay men and women in their study said open and honest disclosure was how they maintained their relationships
+ Support from research, Sprecher and Hendrick - studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure, more satisfied and committed to the relationship
Physical attractiveness - Matching hypothesis
Theory of interpersonal attraction which argues that relationships are formed between two people who are equal or very similar in terms of social desirability
We are more likely to be attracted to people who are of a similar attractiveness to ourselves
Hypothesis 1 - Attractive people expect an attractive partner
Hypothesis 2 - Couples who are equally matched are happier
Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness
Shackelford and Larson - found people with symmetrical faces are more attractive as they have an honest set of genetic fitness
Neotenous faces - people are attracted to baby faced features as they trigger an instinct of protection and caring
Physical attractiveness - Walster et al
The more socially desirable a person is the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be
Most often chose to date a partner of approx their own attractiveness
Individuals looking for a partner will be infleunced by the notion of realistic choices - The desirability of the potential match
The probability of the person saying ‘yes’
=This means people have to settle for mating ‘within their league’ whether or not they want to
AO3 for physical attractiveness
- Research not supporting, Walster original study failed to support the hypothesis, failed to provide conclusive evidence for matching hypothesis
Taylor et al, investigated activity log on dating website found that website users more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them = should seek similar, better chance of being accepted - individual differences, importance that people place on physical attractiveness, Towhey - pts photos of strangers some biographical info, pts asked to rate how much liked people on photographs, physical attractiveness important for pts who displayed sexist attitudes
+ Research support - Sprecher Hatchfield, people may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities, ‘complex matching’ = research fails to find evidence of matching in term of physical appearance
Filter theory
Constraints that either we or our environment put on us when selecting prospective partner
Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term couples
We have a field of available, but not everyone who is available is desirable
Series of factors or filters which narrow down our potential partners to a field of desirables
Actual field of people who are available, desirable and fit within all three filters
Realistic field of perspective partners who are available and desirable to us, before filtering
Filter theory research
Kerckhoff and Davis - 94 dating couples at Duke University completed 2 questionnaires assessing similarities and values (Index of Value Consensus Test) and the degree of complementarity (FIRO- B test)
7 months later, couples completed another questionnaire to assess how close they felt to their partner now, compare to the beginning of the study
Short term couples, less than 18 months, similarity of attitudes and values was the most significant predictor of closeness
Long term couples, complementarity of needs was the only predictor of closeness
Grounds of filter theory
Filter 1 - Social demography
these factors influence the chance of meeting a partner in the first place include :
Geographical location, social class, educational level, ethnic group, religion - Proximity = accessibility
More likely to meet people in physical vicinity and this increases the likelihood that you will in turn share certain demographic characteristics
Don’t meet criteria, most meaningful interactions will be with
Constrained to those who share our social demography
Too different ruled out - leads to homogamy in which you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who shares similar interests and values to you
Filter 2 - Similarity in attitudes
Most important factor in the development of relationships but only for those couples who had been together less than 18 months
Important for partners to value the same things in life and find the same things important for the relationship to continue
Filter 3 - Complementarity
Ability of the partners to meet each others needs
Compliment each other best when one possesses traits that the other lacks
Most important in long term relationships
AO3 for filter theory
- Temporal validity, rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables, pursue a relationship with someone outside the usual demographic limits
- Lack of research support, Levinger et al replicated study with 330 steadily attached couples, no significant link between length if relationship and the influence of these filters
- Perceived similarity may be more important than actual similarity, Tidwell - speed dating event, perceived predicted romantic liking
Social exchange theory
uses concepts from economics and from operant conditioning
Economics = key to maintaining a relationship is that they are mutually beneficial
Form a relationship if it is rewarding
Attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs
Commit to the relationship if the outcome is profitable
Rewards - Cost = Outcome
Thibaut and Kelley - Minimax principle : We attempt to maximise our rewards and minimise our costs
Assumption that when people receive rewards from others they feel obliged to reciprocate
1 - Measuring the ‘profitability’ of a relationship
Comparison level - a standard against which all relationships are compared
Based on memories of past experiences combined with expectations of what we want and can expect in the future
When we meet a new partner they are compared to the comparison level, if the profit of new relationship is thought to exceed the comparison level, relationship will be formed
CL influenced social norms
CL changes and adapts as we get more relationships, more data to compare against
A measure of how much reward we think we deserve to receive - impacted by self esteem
Lower self esteem, lower CL therefore be satisfied with smaller gains
2 - Measuring profitability
Provides a wider context for our current relationship
Only stay in our current relationship if we deem it to be more rewarding the alternatives - comparison level for alternatives
We meet someone else we refer to this and determine the costs and rewards associated with staying or leaving the relationship
The rewards are greater, existing relationship may be terminated and new one formed
Stages of relationship development
Sampling stage - explore rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting them in our relationships, or by observing others doing so
Bargaining stage - beginning of relationship, romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, identifying what is most profitable
Commitment stage - sources and costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
Institutionalisation stage - partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, are firmly established
Costs and rewards of a relationship change and become more or less important with time
Key study - Social exchange theory
Kurdek and Schmitt - 44 heterosexual couples
35 cohabitating heterosexual couples
50 same sex male couples
56 same sex female couples
Completed a questionnaire without discussing answers with their partner
All couples, greater relationship satisfaction was associated with perception of many benefits of the current relationship (CL) and seeing alternatives as less attractive (CLAIt)
AO3 for social exchange theory
- Evidence for the influence of the CLAIt : Sprecher - Longitudinal study, 101 dating couples at university
CLAIt was high, commitment and satisfaction with current relationship was low - Reductionist, Focused on the selfish rewards of a single individual, Fails to take into account fairness leading to equity
- Problems of costs and benefits, may be rewarding for one person, may punishing to another
Equity theory
Walster et al - People strive to achieve this fairness in their relationship
When both partner’s level of profit are roughly the same
Equity = fairness (subjective)
Profits = rewards - costs
Equitable relationship is one where both partner’s level of profit are roughly the same
Equal relationship would be one where the level of costs and rewards have to be the same
When there is a lack equity, one partner will underbenefit and the other will overnebenefit = Inequality
Under benefitter - anger, hostility, resentment and humiliation
Overbenefitter - guilt, shame and discomfort
Equity and equality
Ratio of rewards and costs is what matters
Satisfying relationships are marked by negotiations to ensure equity, the fair distribution of rewards between the two partners
Design involves making trade offs
Principles of equity theory
Profit - rewards are maximised and costs minimised
Distribution - trade offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship
Dissatisfaction - greater the degree of perceived unfairness, the greater the sense of dissatisfaction
Realignment - restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue, with attempts made to realign equity
Consequences of inequity
Strong correlation between perceived inequity and level of dissatisfaction in both the underbenefitted and overbenefitted partner
Changes in perceived inequity - make us most dissatisfied is a change in the level of perceived equity as time goes on, start of relationship natural to contribute more than you receive
Dealing with inequity - the more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity
Dealing with inequity
Hatfield and Rapson - Equality can be restored by - Restoration of actual equality = Individual voluntarily set things right or urge their partner to do so
Restoration of psychological equality = Individual distort reality and convince themselves that things are perfect as they are
Removing yourself from the inequality = can be physical and emotional
Key study for equity theory
200 married couples completed measures of equality and relationship satisfaction
Spouse answered Qs about their use of maintenance strategies such as reassurances and positivity
Spouses who felt their relationship was equitable showed the satisfaction, followed by over benefitted partners
Under benefitted husbands reported significantly lower levels of relationship maintenance strategies
Spouses who were treated more equitability tended to be happier and more likely to behave in ways that contributed to their spouse’s sense of equality and happiness
AO3 for equity theory
- Gender differences, women perceived themselves as more under benefitted and less over benefitted, Sprecher - women feel more guilt in response to being over benefited
- Cultural differences, Equality less important in non western cultures
Aumer - Ryan - individualistic : Both genders were found to be happiest in equitable relationships
Collectivist : Both genders were found to be happiest when they were overbenefitting
Rusbult investment model
Suggests that the maintenance of a relationship is determined by commitment
Commitment = likelihood that relationship will persist
three things : satisfaction level, comparison with alternatives and investment size
Satisfaction level
based on comparison level
Weighing up the total profit of the relationship by comparing the rewards and costs against previous experiences and social norms
Positive vs negative emotions experienced and the extent to which their most important needs are fulfilled by their partner
= determines the level of satisfaction
feel more satisfied if they have more rewards and fewer costs
Quality of alternative
Attractive alternative = may leave the relationship
No attractive exists = may maintain the relationship (increases satisfaction)
Sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one
Process of considering the costs of staying or going but also if your needs would be better met outside the relationship
Investment size
Anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends
These investments create a strong foundation for a lasting future
Investment increases dependence, as connections with the partner, that are costly to break, increase
Commitment vs satisfaction
Couples in happy relationships show a high level of commitment
Partners anticipate very little gain and high levels of loss if the relationship ends
Commitment is low when satisfaction and investment are low and the quality of alternatives is high
Not satisfaction keep us in relationships but the commitment, explains why people stay in relationships when they are dissatisfied
Commitment happens through investments - we invest things we don’t want to go to waste, so we work hard to maintain them and repair damage to our relationships by utilising relationship maintenance mechanisms
Relationship maintenance mechanisms
Behavioural - Accommodation : prioritising and acting for the health of the relationship over tit for tat
Willingness to sacrifice - putting your partner’s interests first
Forgiveness
Cognitive - Positive illusions - unrealistically positive about their partners
Ridiculing alternatives - as a result negative about tempting alternatives and other people’s relationships
AO3 for Rusbult’s investment model
+ Explaining abusive relationships - intimate partner violence, victims of partner abuse experience low satisfaction stay in the relationship, don’t leave due to lack of alternatives and high level of investments, Rusbult and Martz asked women living refuges why they stayed, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship with their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great
+ Wider application of the model - commitment is positively associated with satisfaction and investment size is negatively associated with quality of alternatives, relevance of different types of relationship and in USA, Netherlands and Taiwan
+ Meta analysis support - Le and Agnew, meta analysis, 11000 pts 52 studies, satisfaction comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment and commitment was defining feature of long lasting relationships
Duck Relationship Breakdown
Process of relationship breakdown - the stages partners go through when relationships are breaking down
Each stage is marked by one partner or both reaching a ‘threshold’ - the road to relationship breakdown happens when one partner becomes dissatisfied
Duck’s Breakdown Model Stages
Intrapsychic phase - One of the partners become more and more dissatisfied with relationship, do not tell their partner yet, weigh up pros and cons/ consider alternatives, begins to make plans for the future
Threshold - ‘I can’t stand this anymore’
Dyadic phase - Other person becomes involved, interpersonal processes between the two partners, a series of confrontations over a period of time as the partners cannot avoid talking about their dissatisfaction any longer, two possible out comes either renewed determination to continue with the break down of the relationship or renewed desire to repair it
Threshold - ‘I would be justified in leaving’
Stage 3 - Social phase, break up is aired and made public to family and friends, focus shifts to the couple’s social network, partners will seek to form pacts at this point mutual friends will find they are expected to pick sides, factions formed, gossip traded, some will offer reassurance, judgement and place blame, reveal previously secret info, save relationship by mediating
Threshold - ‘I mean it’
Grave dressing phase - ex- partners begin the organisation of their post relationship lives, focus on aftermath, publicised their own accounts of breakdown and what the new nature of the relationship is, attempt to maintain rep showing the other person in bad light - La Gaipa ‘social credit’ break up each partner attempts to retain social credit by blaming the circumstances rather than themselves
Story they can live with, rewrite history, changes the perspective on the whole relationship
Threshold - ‘It is now inevitable’
What stage was added later ?
Resurrection phase - Each partner prepares themselves for new relationships by defining themselves and building on past mistakes and experiences
Threshold - ‘Time to get a new life’
AO3 for Duck’s relationship breakdown model
+ Face validity, an account of relationship breakdown that we can relate to our own and or others experiences, dissolution process rather than an event, theory applies mainly to romantic relationships, exclusive in a way that friendships generally are not
- Original model fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth, Tashiro and Frazier - found that 92 students they surveyed felt they had benefitted from breaking up with their partners with personal growth and clearer ideas about future partners.
- Impact of the social phase varies by type of relationship, relationships of teenagers and young adults are seen as more unstable than long term adult relationships, Dickson - older adults have lower expectations of finding a new relationship and so the consequences of breakdown are more significant
Virtual relationships
Social media - Altered the way in which relationships are carried out
Paralanguage - the non lexical component of communication by speech
Non verbal paralanguage - more important than the words themselves for example body posture
On the phone there are still paralanguage signals which can communicate intention i.e. tone
Non verbal communication lost on internet
Self disclosure in virtual relationships
Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler) - Computed Mediated Communication relationships are less effective then face to face ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in face to face interactions, include non verbal cues, CMC lack cues to our emotional state, without cues can lead to deindividuation reduces people’s sense of individual identity, encourages disinhibition in relating to others
Virtual relationships more likely to involve blunt or even aggressive communication, reluctance to disclose and reveal any meaningful info about yourself, do not want to initiative a relationship with someone who is so impersonal, reveal innermost feelings
Hyperpersonal model - Walther, online relationships can be more personal and involve greater disclosure than face to face ones, CMC relationships can develop quickly as disclosure happens earlier , established more intense and intimate, end more quickly because of high excitement level interactions is not matched by level of trust between the relationship partners, self presentation - sender of message has more time to manipulate their online image than in face to face situation, online people have more control over what they disclose and cues to send, easier to manipulate self - disclosure to promote intimacy in CMC relationships, self presenting in a positive and idealised way
Anonymity promotes self disclosure, Bargh - strangers on the train effect, people do not know your identity feel less accountable for actions and behaviour, disclose more to a stranger
What is gating ?
Obstacles/ barriers that exist in the formation of romantic relationships
Ftf interaction gated as features can interfere with early relationship development, example - social anxiety
McKenna and Bargh - CMC absence of gating, relationship can develop a point where self disclosure becomes frequent and deeper, allows relationship to form, refocuses attention on self disclosure and away from one might be considered superficial and distracting features, more interested in what you tell me rather than what you look and sound like
Gates can remain hidden in turn allows self disclosure and intimacy to develop
Gate may be revealed but because of the self disclosure it doesn’t matter as much now
Absence of gating means that people are free to create online identities that they could never manage ftf
