Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
outline the evolutionary explanation for partner preference
A
- Intrasexual selection- one sex must outcompete the others members of the sex in order to gain access to the females. Successful males get to pass on their genes, loser doesn’t mate or pass on genes. The characteristic that leads to success then becomes more widespread in the gene pool
- Intersexual selection- a member of one sex evolve preferences for desirable qualities in mates. Those with the qualities can mate
- Long term mate preferences- pays to be choosy, as half of the genes of the child is the mate. Unhealthy and unattractive mates will produce similar children. For females, attracted to resources and strength, compatibility. Men, small waist, youth etc to signify futility
2
Q
evaluate evolutionary explanation for partner preference
A
- Cultural traditions just as important as evolution forces?- Bernstein points out gender differences in mate prefernces may stem from culture. e.g. women have been denied eco and political power in the past so have had to rely security and depndency. Analysis of 37 studies, found women valued access to males resources far more in culutures where women were more limited.
- Pref for high stutus men may not be universal- argues majority of studies that suggest this have been carried out on female undergraduate students. These women probs want to achive a lot so have high expectations of income.
- Mate choice in real life- Buss survey of mate choice suffers from low validity, expresses prefernces, but not realy life. However, many real life studies also support these mate-choice hypothese. Buss, 29 cultures, men do choose younger women
- Menstrual cycle- women want slightl fem faces for a lonterm relationship, but short term they want masculine, during ovulaiton.
- Human equivilent to peacocks tail- reasearch supports the view that some human traits that serve no survival purpose have evolved due to sexual selection. Preference for creative partner.
3
Q
physical attractiveness and mate choice
A
Matching hypothesis- Walster and Walster- seek out people who social desirability match their own.
4
Q
evaluate matching hypothesis and physical attractiveness
A
- Speed dating- Eastwick claim although men may value physical attractiveness more than women, the differences don’t impact real life. Speed dating research included a 30-day follow-up, prior they showed traditional dating requirements etc, however, no differences were shown between male and females
- Complex matching- may explain why we don’t find evidence for matching physical preferences
- MH may not be important for initial attraction- the study of online dating pairs, found no evidence that decisions were driven by a similarity. Instead, they found evidence of an overall pref for attractive partners
- Sex differences- some suggest if physical attractiveness is more important to men, women will feel pressured. However physical attractiveness is not the only predictor. Both men and women desire suppotive, trustowrthhy, warm partners.
5
Q
outline self-disclosure in relationships
A
- First define
- Research has shown the amount of SD received was a better predictor of how good a relationship was that the amount given. Sprecher found SD was important in relationship stability.
- Different types of SD- if you disclose more personal info it will have a greater impact than neutral info.
- Norms- people should engage in moderate SD in the early stages and gradually increase it
- Derlega and Grzelak suggest disclosure should be so personal that it could be seen as inappropriate, however, should be personal enough that the receiver feels they know something private.
- People expect reciprocity, in the same degree
6
Q
evaluate SD
A
- Meta-analysis- Collins and Miller, found people who disclose more are liked more, and that intimacy increased if the disclosed info wasn’t disclosed to anyone else
- Norms- Tal-Or and Hersham- showed that the relationship between gradual SD and attraction applies to TV as well. People liked contestant who disclosed less
- Cultural differences- difference sin what they deem as appropriate, what may be neutral to someone in a western culture, may be very inappropriate to someone else. People in the USA are found to disclose more than people in Japan and China. Nakanishi found Japnese women preferred less SD than Japanese men, the opposite in western cultures
- Boom and bust phenomenon- internet had high levels of SD as people feel anonymous, relationships get very intense quickly but difficult to sustain.
7
Q
outline the filter theory
A
Field of available to field of desirables
-Social demography
-Similarity in attitudes
-Complementarity of needs
The key study- 94 student couples, divided into short term and long term. Found short-term shared attitudes would be the best predictor, but for long term, it was complimentary of needs
8
Q
evaluate filter theory
A
- Lack of research- Levinger failed to replicate the finding of Kerckoff and Davis. 330 couples who were steadily attached went through the same procedure. No evidence that either similarity of attitudes influenced the progress of a relationship.
- Lack of filter- some argue there must be more filters added, too simplistic, like physical attraction
- Stages may not be fixed in that order, individual differences
- Lack of cross-cultural validity- arranged marriages, suggest they have a choice in the matter
- Bryne found individuals will be more attracted to you if you share a lot of fo attitudes rather than just a few
9
Q
evaluate the social exchange theory
A
- Sprecher, longitudinal study of 101 student couples, they showed components of comparison level and found that those who lacked alternatives were likely to remain due to lack of better options
- Kurdek and Schmitt-185 couples including married couples and gay couples found people were happier if they concluded they had a lot of benefits. We can generalise to same-sex couples.
- Mills and Clark- found some couples do evaluate relationships, however many don’t, those who do are high in exchange orientation and couples who don’t are called communal couples
- Argyle suggests we only count the COSTS after we know we are unhappy
- Culture- some cultures don’t think like that
10
Q
evaluate the equity theory
A
- Stafford and Canary- 200 married couples completed a survey on measures of equity and satisfaction. Equitable ones were the happiest, then over benefitted, then under.
- Other replicated this study and found it was only true with couples with high exchange orientation. Those low is exo were happy whatever happened.
- Huseman- identified 3 types of individuals, benevolent, equity sensitives and entitled
- DeMaris- used 1500 USA couples, found women were more sensitive to inequities. Also more likely to see injustices and exploitation
- Moghaddam- cultural validity, reflects individualists cultures and western views. Jamaican people strive to be overbenefitted
11
Q
evaluate investment theory
A
- Impett- 3627 married couples, found their satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives was a strong predictor of their commitment to the relationship.
- Le and Agnew- meta-analysis of 52 studies found satisfaction, investment and quality of its significantly correlated with relationship commitment, however, satisfaction was the most important
- One study found that in a battered women shelter, that the higher the investment, the less likely they would leave
- Sprecher- investment does not directly predict commitment, satisfaction was most important
- Cultural validity again
12
Q
evaluate Ducks relationship breakdown
A
- RWA- stresses the importance of communication. couples therapy could help identify the phases they are in. Intervention
- Benefits of grave dressing-concentrating on another’s failure may help them not be depressed
- Too simplistic- more complex, other variables have been considered, like sexuality, gay people may not share it socially.
- Fails to reflect possibility of personal growth- he did add the resurrection phases, later on, suggests we are all selfish and blame others
- Low cross-cultural validity
- Doesn’t take reason for breakup into account, like cheating, may skip all steps
13
Q
outline virtual relationships
A
- SD in virtual relationships- the concept of broadcasting SDpoeple are more secure about disclosing private info online. Different depending on the platform. If it’s going to a large amount of people=less SD.
- Why do we SD more on the internet- anonymity. They do not engage until they are satisfied the receiver won’t tell anyone. Dangers of face to face- rejection, embarrassment. Similar to Stranger on a train phenomenon.
- Absence of gating in VR- absence of these barriers, like shynesss or unattractiveness
- Consequences- people may actually be more open due to lack of rejection. Found Facebook gated individual show the world what they want to be
14
Q
evaluate virtual relationships
A
- The importance of the internet for relationships- Rosenfield and Thomas- 4000 US adults, those with access to the internet were much more likely to be partnered. 71% who had the internet had a spouse of partner. Those who didn’t have the internet, only 35% had partners.
- VR can be as strong as real life ones- it’s claimed they can’t be compared, however, Rosenthal found no evidence to say virtually is worse, found no evidence that virtual was more fragile
- Facebook helps shy people have better quality relationships- study on male and female students on their shyness. For the one high on shyness scale, greater use of Facebook was associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality
- Online can develop into offline- can’t think of them as separate, stop gating, leads into real relationship
15
Q
outline parasocial relationships
A
One sided bond with a media figure who is unaware of the person existence
- Level 1- entertainment/social level- attracted to persons because of the entertainment they provide
- Level 2- intense personal level- intensely engaged with the chosen celeb, may become obsessive
- Level 3- borderline pathological level- repeated attempts at trying to reach the person, over-identification with celeb, uncontrollable behaviours
- Attachment theory as an explanation- those with an insecure attachment is more likely to develop a PSR due to a lower chance of rejection. Those who are insecure-avoidant were linked to PSR with a fave tv personality due to the fact they normally are concerned about reciprocity
- Attachment behaviours- proximity seeking, secure base nad protest at disruption
- Absorption addiction model- people with deficits in their lives may develop PSR
