Relationships Flashcards
What is anisogamy as part of evolutionary explanations of partner preference?
differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
Male= sperm-produced in vast amounts, no energy required
Female= eggs- large, over intervals and limited period of time so requires lots of energy
-Never a shortage of fertile males so fertile females is a resource
Describe sexual selection as an evolutionary explanation of partner preference
Evolution of characteristics eg attraction to opposite sex that enable reproductive success
Intra-sexual selection=male mate preferences
(members of one sex compete with each other to gain mates and reproduce)
dominant male is successful so attracted to younger and hourglass figured women (inherent sign of fertility)
Inter-sexual selection= preferences of one sex for opposite= different
Female- commitment in birth so preference more serious if chosen wrong male, women more choosy eg strength for protection
Determines features to pass to offspring eg height will be successive
Fisher- “sexy sons hypothesis” - desirable characteristics inherited by her son
Evaluate the evolutionary explanations of partner preferences
+support for intra sexual competition
ppts asked how often friends bragged about resources in past 3 months
men behaved more than women
men compete to attract female
+support for intersexual competition
m and f students asked “Would you go to bed with me tonight?”
75% men agreed, no females did
men evolved diff strategy to maximise reproductive success
+male preferences are constant across cultures
asked 10kppts from 37 cultures and found common patterns
men=younger and physically attractive women
female=good financial prospects
behaviour evolved not learned
-presumes all relationships are sexual/hetero
oversimplified+not explained all types
long-distance/internet
assumes all are motivated by desire to reproduce
-ignores changing social norms
women don’t need men to provide for them
greater role in workplace
limited explanation
What is self disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
revealing personal info about oneself to another is crucial for closer and intimate relationships
Altman and Taylor- Rps develop through gradual increase in depth and breadth of self disclosure- rewarding and signals desire for intimacy
Reis and Shaver- must be reciprocal (disclose and respond with understanding)= balance to depend rp
2 peels for self disclosure
research-self disclosure and perception of it increased intimacy in long-term married couples and reversed with less
study on gay men and women
57% who had open and honest = deepened commitment
using skillfully= rp formed
limiting small talk benefits people
Explain physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
Buss= men greater importance as its a cue for women’s health and fertility
face symmetry=genetic fitness and not fake
neotenous features=baby face (big eyes, small nose)= protective and caring instinct
- Matching Hypothesis- ppl look for similar attractiveness
assessing own levels and focussing on potential partners with perceived similar levels
-due to fears that more attractive partner tempted to end if someone better looking becomes available
2 PEELs for physical attractiveness
forthcoming dance event support
assigned ideal partner when selections were random
those paired with similar attractiveness= greater liking
similar preferred each other more
assessing photos of real vs non-genuine couples
real couples had similar attractiveness levels
couples do have similar levels irl
What is the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
3 factors that act as filters to narrow down the range if available partners to smaller pod of possibilities
1) Social demography- likelihood of meeting in first place- location, work, socialisation makes communicating easier
2) Similar attitudes- agreeing over beliefs and values=increased stability
3) Complementarity- opposites attract- traits other lacks= mutual satisfaction, sense of wholeness, last long-term
2 PEELs for the filter theory
citizens from Columbus, Ohio
50% lived within walking distance
similarity of social demographic variables
importance for choice of partner
dating couples at uni
less than 18mths= similar attitudes important
more than= complementarity
changing importance was rp is deeper
HOWEVER depth as length problematic
Give 3 additional peels for factors affecting attraction
based on correlational data
cannot say that levels of attractiveness cause satisfaction
misleading
lacks temporal validity
online dating changed process
people present themselves in diff ways
new theories required
suffers from cultural bias
theories are proposed by Western researchers (indies) not collectivists
India factors may be less important in collectivist cultures
not universal
What is the social exchange theory as a romantic relationships theory?
All social behaviours are a series of exchanges to maximise award and minimise costs
Rewards= being cared for, companionship, sex
Costs= effort, financial costs, wasted time
Reward minus cost = outcome
- chances of relationship being maintained depends on profitability of outcome
Comparison levels= comparing current to past (in past of same rp)- exceeds previous ones=worthwhile, no profit= not
Comparison level of alternatives- weigh up potential increase in profit by alternative partners and minus costs of ending current
Evaluate social exchange theory(3 PEELs) as a theory of romantic relationships
+successful marriage research
5:1 positive to negative exchanges
unsuccessful 1:1 or less
maintained due to more profit
-does state how much to loss to be unsatisfactory
individual differences
theory incomplete
does account for how relationships all work eg domestic abuse
+prac apps
Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy= break negative patterns that may be costs
2/3 rps improved
makes relationships more profitable
Explain the equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships
costs and profits must be equal for people to strive to achieve fairness
-people are satisfied in rp if they get out (rewards) what they put In (costs)
-1 partners benefits minus costs= others benefits minus costs
-over-benefitted= rewards outweigh costs= pity, guilt
-under-benefitted= opposite= resentment, anger
- people under/over are likely to have short-lasting rps
-equity= long-lasting rps
Evaluate the equity theory (3 PEEls) as a theory of romantic relationships
+married couples
200 questioned
satisfaction higher if perceived rp as fair then overbenefitted then under benefitted
consistent with theory
-gender biased
research- husbands earn more than wives and rated rated own career as more important- wives agreed
when women income more none more important
wives seek less for themselves
-too simplistic
research- close relationships too complex to assess costs and rewards
not possible to asses equity due to emotional input
not measurable
Explain Rusbult’s investment model of commitment as a theory of romantic relationships
Satisfaction- partners feel rewards outweigh costs
Comparison with alternatives- whether rp with diff partners bring more rewards and less costs
Investment- resources contributed that would be lost if ended eg shared friendships, time, energy= motivation to maintain
Commitment- high satisfaction, quality of alternatives low, high investment
Satisfaction low- people choose to stay due to high investment which don’t want to be wasted
Evaluate Rusbults investment model of commitment as a theory of romantic relationships
+meta-analysis-52 studies, 30 years, 11k ppts, 5 countries
all factors predict most committed = long-lasting
supports theory
-oversimplifies investment
future plans couples made should be included
motivated to commit= want to see plans fruition
theory not complex enough
+explains why women stay in abusive relationships
investment eg children
effectively explains what can’t be on face of it
+can explain infidelity
low satisfaction leads to low commitment
real-life issues
Give 2 additional evaluation points for romantic relationships theories
-self report methods used
social desirability bias
invalid findings and subjective
-cultural bias in individualist cultures
collectivists see needs as a group - more focus on partner
not universal
Describe Duck’s Phase model to explain the breakdown of romantic relationships
4 phases during dissolution of a rp, reach a threshold where perception changes once partner is distressed
1) Intrapsychic- cog processes, individual considers pros+cons of rp evaluating against alternatives, broods on the reasons for their dissatisfaction
2) Dyadic- interpersonal processes, consider confronting partner to discuss feelings, the couple will commit to repairing/remain determined to break up
3) Social- wider processes, distress experiences by both become public, friends may be asked to choose sides and offer support
4) Grave-dressing- aftermath, present themselves as trustworthy to attract future partners, publicly distribute their own version of breakup and justify their actions
Evaluate Duck’s Phase model as a breakdown of relationships
+research into individual has dissatisfaction by feeling underbenefitted
social withdrawal
not of intrapsychic supported
+prac apps
high face validity
relationships counselling identifies stages and how to reverse
-too simplistic
not universal- some in diff orders, not applicable to everyone
some include Resurrection stage (use experiences for future)
doesn’t account for dynamic nature
-research is retrospective
recall=unreliable and inaccurate
earlier stages distorted
reduces validity
-ethical issues
sensitive topic with vulnerable ppl
trauma to revisit events of breakup
can’t go in depth
Explain in virtual relationships in social media
virtual differs from face to face due to:
Self disclosure- revealing personal info online= greater anonymity so less fear of rejection
Boom-bust Phenomenon- relationships occur fast and intimate then end quickly due to less trust
Hyperpersonal model- sender has more time to manipulate their online image= selective self-presentation
Gating= barriers preventing formation of a rp eg physical attractiveness, stammer, social anxiety
online= absence of gating- allows rps to develop and refocus attention on self-disclosure and away from superficial features eg looks
Evaluate virtual relationships in social media
+research into more self disclosure online
meta analysis-questions in online discussions= direct and intimate
small talk in person
supports hyperpersonal model where we present ourselves in positive light to form rps
-wrong to see online in diff way
research = modern are online and in person
what we choose to disclose affects personal interactions and vice versa
too simplistic
+support for absence of gating
lonely, anxious can express true selves online
70% online last 2 years over than real life
can develop successful rps
-cultural differences
US- greater disclosure online=more trust
Korea- less trust
Japan- not a factor
self disclosure affected by cultural factors
+absence of gating has wider benefits offline
people express themselves= enhance self image
increases chances of connecting offline
virtual benefits face to face
Describe the absorption-addiction model for parasocial relationships
When ppl have perceived deficiencies in their own lives- preoccupied with a celeb
identify with celeb to achieve fulfilments (absorption)
-if they need to sustain fulfilment by feeling closer = extreme behaviours and delusional thinking (addiction)
-motivational forces drive increased absorption to lead to addiction
What are the three stages in parasocial relationships?
1)Entertainment-social= least intense, attracted to celeb, gossip (ppl move from this stage due to stressful life events)
2)Intense-personal= intermediate, personal investment with celeb, frequent obsessive thoughts, intense feelings
3)Borderline-pathological= strongest, uncontrollable fantasies, extreme behaviours eg stalking, spending lots of money
Evaluate absorption addiction model for parasocial relationships (3 peels)
+body image research
14-16 year old girls with poor body image had intense-personal PSRS for female celebs with admired body
correlation= level of celeb worship, perceived deficits in own lives
+universal
Harry Potter fans feelings
Germany (indiv) and Mexico (collectivist)= similar
model represents regardless of cultural norms
-more descriptive than explanatory
characteristics of ppl absorbed by and addicted to
not how they develop
questions validity
