Relationships Flashcards
Anisogamy
The difference between male and female sex cells
Inter-Sexual Selection
Strategy of the female, quality over quantity. Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis. A fit male ensures fit offspring.
Intra-Sexual Selection
Strategy of the male, quantity over quality. Males try to impregnate as many women as possible in order to ensure they pass on genes and characteristics. Larger males have advantages, competition.
Buss Anisogamy Study
Survey in 33 countries supported in what different sexes find appealing. Application to different countries.
Clarke and Hatfield (Inter-Sexual Selection)
Choosiness of women (0%) and men (75%).
Shacklefield and Larsen (Physical Attractiveness)
People with symmetrical faces are more attractive, as it is a signal of genetic fitness.
McNulty (Physical Attractiveness)
Physical attractiveness is important in relationships
Dion (The Halo Effect)
Attractiveness associated with successful and sociable attributes.
The Matching Hypothesis
People select romantic partners who are similarly as attractive.
Support for Halo Effect
Palmer and Peterson, found physically attractive people rates as more politically knowledgeable.
Support for Matching Hypothesis
Partners rating each other the same in attractiveness.
Social Penetration Theory
Altman and Taylor, the gradual process of revealing your deepest thoughts and feelings. Breadth and depth of disclosure refers to the quality of the self-disclosure as the relationship goes on.
Reciprocity of Self-Disclosure
Reis and Shaver, for a relationship to develop there needs to be a balance.
Support for Self-Disclosure (Sprecher and Hendrick)
Strong correlations with satisfaction and level of self disclosure, increases the validity of the theory.
Real-Life Application for Self-Disclosure (Hass and Stafford)
57% of gay men and women, self-disclosure the main way they maintain their relationship.
Cultural Differences in Self-Disclosure (Tang)
Men and Women n USA disclosure more than in China, therefore self-disclosure is a limited explanation.
Filter Theory (Ketchoff and Davis)
Social demography- location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion etc.
Similarity in attitudes- similar beliefs and views, for short term relationships this promotes self-disclosure.
Complementarity- partners complement each other when one has traits the other lacks.
Failure to Replicate Filter Theory (Lovinger)
Many studies have failed to replicate the findings, due to social changes over time.
Evaluation of Filter Theory
Anderson- emotional convergence over time.
Davis and Rusbult- alignment effect.
Parasocial Relationships, 3 Levels
McCutcheon, Entertainment, Intense and Borderline Pathological.
Absorption-Addiction Model
Absorption- seeking fulfilment, Addiction- extreme behaviours and delusional thinking.
The Attachment Theory Explanation for Parasocial Relationships
Bowlby- maternal deprivation, emotional troubles later in life.
Ainsworth- insecure-resistant.
Support for Absorption-Addiction Model
Maltby investigated the idea of celebrity worship and found those who idolised women often experienced poor body confidence.
Problems with Attachment with Regards to Parasocial Relationships
McCutcheon measured attachments of people with addictive parasocial relationships and found no significant results, low validity.
Virtual Relationships- Self-Disclosure
Sproull and Kiesler reduced cues theory, de-individualisation and disinhibition.
Walther’s hyper personal model suggests there is greater self-disclosure but selective self-presentation.
Absence of Gating in Parasocial Relationships
McKenna and Bargh found a lack of ‘gates’.
Research Support for Walther’s Hyperpersonal Model
Whitty and Joinson, wealth of evidence for greater self-disclosure than face-to-face interaction.
Outline Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
- Intra-psychic- cognitive processing of dissatisfaction.
- Dyadic- discussing dissatisfactions.
- Social phase- involving social networks.
- Grave-Dressing- spinning a more favourable story.
Outline Rusbult’s Investment Model
- Satisfaction and comparison with alternatives.
- Investment size.
- Satisfaction versus commitment.
- Relationship maintenance mechanisms.
How Rusbult’s Investment Model Explains Abusive Relationships
Lack of attractive alternatives.
How Does Rusbult’s Investment Model Oversimplify Investment?
Goodfriend and Agnew, added future plans, suggesting a limited explanation.
