Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary Explanations: AO1.
Intrasexual: one sex must outcompete others for access to the opposite sex.
Intersexual: one sex has preferred qualities.
Buss: 10000 people, 37 different cultures. Rate 18 characterisics on importance in choosing a mate. Good financial prospects, physical attractiveness, intelligence, kindness.
Evolutionary Explanations: AO3.
Cultural traditions may lead to gender differences. May not be universal preferences.
Buss: marriages in 29 cultures, men do choose younger women.
Penton-Voak et al: may be influenced by menstrual cycle. Preferred a feminine face long-term, but a masculine face in high conception.
Kasser and Sharma: women value access to resources more where women are limited than with free choice.
Physical Attractiveness: AO1.
Matching hypothesis: social desirability equals their own. Must assess own value. Similarities in physical attractiveness.
Walster et al: computer dance, 177 males, 170 females, rated on attractiveness, given a questionnaire. Did not support matching hypothesis. Responded positively to physically attractive dates, unaffected by other factors.
Physical Attractiveness: AO3.
Eastwick and Finkel: ideal preferences did not dictate actual behaviour.
Sprecher and Hatfield: a person may compensate for a lack of one characteristic with another.
Meltzer et al: supports physical attractiveness as an indicator of relationship satisfaction. Plays a stronger role in men’s long-term satisfaction.
Taylor et al: matching may not be that important in initial attraction.
Self Disclosure: AO1.
The extent to which a person reveals information about themselves.
Sprecher et al: 156 undergraduates paired up, 2/3 female female, 1/3 male female. Self disclosure via skype. Reciprocated or asked questions. Reciprocal reported more closeness.
Self Disclosure: AO3.
Collins and Miller: meta analysis, people who engage in intimate disclosure are more liked than those with lower disclosure levels.
Relationships over the internet have higher self disclosure (boom and bust).
Tal-Or and Hershman-Shitrit: applies to reality TV characters. Gradual disclosure.
Americans disclose more than Chinese/Japanese.
Nankanishi: Japanese women prefer a lower level of personal discussion than men.
Opposes Western culture.
Filter Theory: AO1.
Choose romantic partners by limiting field of availability. Social demographic, similarity in attitude, complementarity of needs.
Kerchkoff and Davis: longitudinal study of dating couples. Two questionnaires. Initially, similarity was related to partner closeness. Short-term: similarity of attitudes. Long-term: complementarity of needs.
Filter Theory: AO3.
Levinger et al: failed to replicate Kerchkoff and Davis’ study.
Duck: allows predictions to be made about the future. Perceived similarity predicts attraction more accurately than actual similarity.
Correlations between similar personality rather than complementarity.
Values and filters change over time.
Social Exchange Theory: AO1.
Thibaut and Kelley: maximise rewards, minimise costs.
Comparison level: standard against which all relationships are judged.
Alternative comparison level: weighs up rewards and costs.
Kurdek and Schmitt: 44 heterosexual married, 35 heterosexual cohabiting, 50 gay and 50 lesbian. Questionnaire. Factors predicting relationship satisfaction are the same for same-sex relationships as heterosexuals.
Social Exchange Theory: AO3.
Sprecher: lacking alternatives, may choose to stay in a relationship.
Costs and benefits are subjective. Needs to be assessed and quantified. Overemphasis on costs and benefits. Real world applications to relationship therapy.
Equity Theory: AO1.
Social behaviour is a series of exchanges.
Schafer and Keith: married couples in child-rearing, wives are under-benefitted, husbands are over-benefitted.
Hatfield and Rapson: concerned with reward and equity at different stages in the relationship.
Stafford and Canary: measure of equity and satisfaction, asked questions, satisfaction highest: equitable, over-benefitted, under-benefitted.
Equity Theory: AO3.
Huseman et al: benevolents (givers), equity sensitives, entitleds (receivers).
Individual differences.
Perception of gender differences.
Less important in non-Western cultures.
Brosnan and de Waal: female capuchin monkeys became angry when denied grapes. If another monkey received the grapes instead, they hurled food at the experimenter.
Chimpanzees more upset by injustice in casual relationships.
Causal relationships not established, only correlational.
Investment Model: AO1.
Satisfaction level: positive vs negative emotions. Quality of alternatives.
Rusbult: investment size contributes to stability of relationships.
Contributes to commitment levels.
Le and Agnew: meta analysis, 52 studies, explores components of model.
Satisfaction level, alternatives and investment size correlated with relationship commitment.
Investment Model: AO3.
Le et al: commitment is an important predictor of whether a relationship stays together.
Difficult to measure commitment and other variables, subjective.
Real world applications to staying in abusive relationships.
Goodfriend and Agnew: investments should involve any future plans.
Wide applications to different cultures and different relationships.
Relationship Breakdown: AO1.
Breakdown: relationship dissatisfaction. Intrapsychic: focus on costs and benefits. Dyadic: discussion. Social: public, irretrievable. Gravedressing: changing stories.
