Relationships Flashcards
Formation of Relationships 7 AO1 Points
1) Filter model - systemic filtration of a ‘field of availables’
2) Social and demographic variables- similar education/economic backgrounds
3) Similarity of attitudes- = communication
4) Complementarity of emotional needs- needed for a long term
5) Reward/need - rewards by meeting our needs .e.g. approval satisfies need for self-esteem
6) Clark and Mills- ‘tit for tat’ basis at first (exchange relationship), less reciprocal (communal relationship)
7) Classical conditioning- like people who we associate with pleasant events
Formation of Relationships 9 AO2 Points
1) FILTER- Kerckhoff and Davies- 18 months- 2nd filter most important. 18+ months- 3rd filter.
2) Only students- population bias
3) Western society- cultural bias. Arranged marriages in collectivist cultures?
4) Historical bias? Demographic features less important now- due to internet
5) Deterministic- breaks formation down into set stages, doesn’t account for individual differences, and natural flow of relationships
6) REWARD-NEED THEORY- Griffit and Guay- support for classical- evaluated p’s on task, then p’s asked to rate experimenter. If positively evaluated, rated them higher
7) Physiological- Aron et al- those scoring high on romantic scale had high levels of dopamine
8) Lab studies- lack mundane realisim
9) Suggests we are self-centred? Hays- we gain satisfaction from giving too. Individualistic cultures- may only apply to these… also women more focused on the needs of others possibly.
Maintenance of Relationships 8 AO1 Points
1) SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY- maximise rewards and minimise costs
2) Rewards eg. companionship, sex
3) Costs eg. financial investment
4) For maintenance, rewards outfit the costs
5) Investments- reasons to maintain it e.g kids
6) Comparison level- based on past relationships or an alternative relationship
7) EQUITY THEORY- strive to achieve fairness
8) Inequity leads to dissatisfaction
Maintenance of Relationships 8 AO2 Points
1) SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY- investments can explain why people stay in abusive relationships
2) Self-centred? Cultural bias- collectivist may be more focussed on meeting the needs of the group, not the individual
3) Do we monitor relationships? Argyle- only count costs when dissatisfied
4) Research support for alternatives- p’s rated opposite sex, those in relationships gave lower ratings. The ‘alternatives’ are a way of dealing with potential threats to your current relationship, as you reduce the threats
5) Reductionist- reduces complex relationship to an exchange of simple commodities
6) EQUITY THEORY- Hatfield- 500 students questionnaire about equity in their relationships. 3 months later, the inequitable relationships were more likely to end.
7) AO3- social desirability of a questionnaire
8) DeMaris- potential gender bias? Inequity only a problem when a woman feels underbenefitted
Breakdown of Relationships 9 AO1 Points
DUCK 1) Intra-psychic- (dissatisfaction) 2) Dyadic - (discussion) 3) Social - (decision to leave publicised, social implications) 4) Gravedressing- (publicising the breakup) LEE 1) Dissatisfaction 2) Exposure 3) Negotiation 4) Resolution Attempts 5) Terminationn
Breakdown of Relationships 8 AO2 Points
DUCK
1) Rigid stages- good as it shows the natural process but may not apply to all relationships. Some end angry, some passive.
2) Why dissatisfaction? No applications- for example ignoring them
3) Risk factors given by Duck- change in interests, deception, boredom
LEE
4) Used surveys from pre-marital couples. Applied to martial couples which is the most important, most social implications
5) Lee events leading up, Duck after. Lee ignores social aspects
6) Femlee- alternative explanation. Fatal attraction
7) Cultural bias- can’t apply to collectivist cultures? Divorce rates lower there as they have a strong focus on the social network
8) Applications- counsellors can use this. Helps the individual to understand their current situation.
Sex Differences in Parental Investment 5 AO1 Points
1) Triver- PIT- differences in the gametes.
2) Triver- PIT- how the sexes maximise reproductive success
3) Buss and Schmitt- SST- short term partners strategies. Males look for women who are fertile and willing to have no commitment. Females look for good genes
4) SST- long term partner strategies. Males look for good parenting and faithfulness. Females look for males who can provide resources
5) SST- social based characteristics too
Sex Differences in Parental Investment 9 AO2 Points
1) PIT- explains female mate preferences. They are monogamous.
2) PIT- explains why males have short term relationships, one night stands etc
3) Not all men have one night stands and some females do. Doesn’t explain why
4) Moral dilemma- double standard
5) Determinism- based on evolutionary
6) SST- Norman and Kenrick- designed short term partners. Both look for physical attractiveness.
7) Self report technique- hypothetical too
8) SST Explains why women also engage in one night stands
9) Dawson and McIntosh- support for social characteristics. Personal ads. Those who had the evolutionary characteristics had less emphasis on social. Those who didn’t have evolutionary characteristics emphasises social
Sexual Selection 8 AO1 Points
1) Sexual selection by Darwin overview
2) Intrasexual selection- mate competition, usually males
3) Intersexual selection- mate choice, usually females
4) Men seek casual relationships more and lower their standards, then slowly decrease their attraction ‘swift exit’
5) Buss- personal ads- women look for financial prospects
6) Buss- men look for attractiveness
7) Buss- men look for younger, women look for older
8) Dunbar and Waynforth- 44% of males looked for attractiveness, 22% of females
Sexual Selection 8 AO2 Points
1) Sallsburg and Holty- 4 female ads. The ‘financially independent and ambitious’ one received most responses. 2003. Men look for this too . Women are now equal and not as dependent
2) Personal ads eliminate investigator effects, but give a biased sample
3) Males may look for youth because they are easier to control. Kenrick- teen males often look for older women.
4) Support for males seeking casual relationships- Clark and Hatfield- college campus, strangers. 75% males agreed to have sex, 0% of women agreed
5) Lap dancer study supports the importance of fertility. Girls in oestrus earned twice the amount of tips
6) Ethnocentric? Buss- cross cultural study of REAL MARRIAGES. In all cases, females placed higher emphasis on wealth and preferred older men. So this is universal…
7) Females are now more financially independent, so now look for men who are more family oriented
8) Evolutionary- based on past human environment. Difficult to falsify
Influence of Childhood 4 AO1 Points
1) Bowlby- continuality hypothesis, internal working models
2) Shaver- romantic love is an integration of 3 systems: attachment, caregiving, sexuality
3) Qualter and Munn- develop a sense of their own value through peer relations
4) Close friendships promote feelings of trust, acceptance and being understood
Influence of Childhood 8 AO2 Points
1) Hazan and Shaver- Secure (56%) - attentive parenting. Anxious avoidant (23%)- rejecting parenting. Anxious ambivalent (19%) - parenting out of step with child’s needs
2) Hazan and Shaver- mental models. Secure- believed in everlasting love. Anxious avoidant- don’t need partner to be happy. Anxious ambivalent- self-doubts
3) AO3- social desirability
4) AO3- only reflects CURRENT. Breakups- shift from secure to insecure
5) Simpson longitudinal- securely attached infants more likely to be socially competent children, have closer friends at 16 and be more emotionally attached to their partner in adulthood
6) Attachment disorders- abuse or neglect during infancy results in a disturbed way of relating to others. Affects pee and romantic relationships
7) DETERMINISTIC. Insecure children doomed? No, people can change
8) Gender differences in peer relationships,, eg. girls more intimate and caring, boys more competitive. But alpha bias? Similarities overlooked, possibly due to observer bias
Influence of Culture 5 AO1 Points
1) Levine et al- 11 countries. 3.5% USA would marry without love, 50% of Pakistanis
2) Filipinos and Pakistanis were the least likely to believe that lack of love is a good reason to end a relationship- Mexicans and Brazilians most likely
3) Divorce shameful in China - 4%. More temporary in West. Divorce 40-50% in USA
4) Western- voluntary. Non-Western- arranged. Family.
5) Western- emphasise individual rights and freedom. Non-Western- emphasise importance of family.
Influence of Culture 8 AO2 Points
1) Individualism- Collectivism
2) Japan- BOTH. Couples there value personal freedom and admit marriage should provide family obligation too.
3) Non-Western shift. Increasing freedom in choosing. due to increased mobility, higher wages etc
4) Increasing urbanisation explains the shift from arranged to temporary marraiges rather than a culture shift?
5) Experimenter bias- qualitative data used, imposed etic?
6) Differences may not be so clear cut between collectivist and individualistic. Col- have some choice. Ind- family have some say
7) Evolutionary love? Love promotes survival…so it is universal
8) Conclusion- Yelsma and Athappily- compared Indian arranged marriages with American choice ones. No difference in satisfaction. Outcome is the same
