RELATIONSHIPS Flashcards
Strengths of sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour
X4
Support for partner preferences:
Buss surveyed over 10 000 adults in 33 countries asking about partner preferences. Found that females valued resource-related characteristics more than males and males valued reproductive capacity Supports sex differences due to anisogamy and partner preferences derived from the sexual selection theory
Support for different mating strategies:
Clark and Hatfield sent students to approach other students and ask ‘would you go to bed with me tonight’. No female students agreed in response to requests from males but 75% of males agreed. Supports suggestion of female choosiness and that males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success
Support from waist-hip ratio research:
Singh measured waist-hip ratio preferences of males for females. He found that any hip and waist size can be attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other is 0.7 (signify female is fertile but not currently pregnant). Shows that evolutionary factors are reflected in patterns of human reproductive behaviour through partner preferences
Support from lonely hearts research:
Waynforth and Dunbar studied lonely hearts advertisements in newspapers to see how men and women described the qualities they desired in and offered to a potential partner. Found women tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth and sought resources. Men offered resources and sought youth and physical attractiveness. Support the evolutionary suggestions that women will seek resources while men are more focused on signs of reproductive fitness
Strength of self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction
Support from research studies:
Sprecher and Hendrick found +0.3 correlation between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure in heterosexual couples. Men and women who used self-disclosure and those who believed their partners also disclosed were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. Supports concept of self-disclosure being a key component of committed romantic relationships
Limitations of self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction
x3
Theory doesn’t apply to all cultures:
Tang et al. Concluded that people in the US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in China (collectivist). levels of self-disclosure are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures but the pattern of self-disclosure is different. Social penetration theory therefore limited explanation of romantic relationships and not necessarily generalisable to other cultures
Self-disclosure is linked to relationship breakdown too:
Sometimes breakdown of relationships are characterised by a reduction in self-disclosure. Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown recognised that couples often discuss their relationship with each other in intimate detail yet this may not be enough to save the relationship. Increased self-disclosure may not always lead to positive developments in a relationship
Much of the research is correlational:
Studies such as Sprecher and Hendrick have found a positive correlation between self-disclosure and satisfaction. However we cannot assume that the relationship is a causal one as there may be a third factor e.g investment causing satisfaction instead. Suggests that such research provides only limited support for the theory
strengths of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
x2
research support for the halo effect:
Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated more politically competent and knowledgeable than unattractive people. suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are considered physically attractive enough by voters. shows how the halo effect can be oberseved in real-life situations
support for the matching hypothesis:
Feingold found a +0.39 correlation between ratings of attractiveness in couples. looked at actual partners instead of hypothetical ones and it was a meta-analysis. supports idea that people choose partners who are similar in attractiveness to themselves
limitations of phsycial attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
x2
not everyone considers physical attractivess important:
Towhey found those who scored highly on the MACHO scale (sexist attitudes) were more influenced by physical attractiveness when judging likeability from a photograph. a low scorers were less sensitive to this influence, it would seem that there are individual differences in the importance pplaced upon physical attractiveness. effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and may not be as significant a consideration in relationship formation for all partners.
online dating research has not supported the matching hypothesis:
Taylor et al. found online daters sought dates with partners who were more attractive than themselves and did not consider their own level of attractiveness. this research involved actual dating choices (meeting people online is becoming increasingly popular) yet it does not support the matching hypothesis. may be that the matching hypothesis no longer explains preferences regarding physical attractiveness in a useful way
strengths of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
x2
similarity in attitudes supported:
Tan & Singh got 21 year olds to complete a questionnaire concerining their attitudes then gave them fake completed attitude questionnaires of a ‘stranger’. found that they rated ‘strangers’ with similar attitudes as more attractive than those with dissimilar attitudes. this supports the 2nd filter of similarity in attitudes causing mutual attraction
complementarity has been supported:
Sadalla et al. found women are attracted to males who are reliable and confident as such qualities indicate an ability to achieve a high position in society. this meets their need for provision of resources. therefore supports the idea of complementarity as an important factor in attraction, particularly in the long term
limitations of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
x2
questions about the direct of effect:
Anderson et al. found cohabittating partners experienced emotional convergence, becoming more similar over time. Also, Davis & Rusbult suggest attitude alignment takes place. threfore it could be that similarities in attitude are the effect of being in a relationship and not a factor initially causing attraction
theory lacks temporal validity:
the dating world has changed and moved increasingly online so social demography has taken much less importance. this is because the likelihood of dating someone outside our cultre has icreased which isn’t predicted by the 1st level of social demography. questions about temporal validity limit filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
strength of social exchange theory
social exchange theory has research support:
Rusbult conducted a longitudinal study involving questioning college students on their relationships. found increases in rewards over time led to increases in satisfaction and for those who stayed in relationship, rewards increased, staisfaction and commitment grew and alternatives declined. has been supported by other studies involving homsexual couples and and in different cultures. provides strong support for the theory
limitations of social exchange theory
x3
assumes all relationships are exchange based:
Clark and Mills are that exchange relationships may involve profit e.g colleagues but romantic relationships involve giving and receiving rewards but not thinking of profit. also, at the beginning of a relationship a tallying of exchanges might be viewed with distaste. may not provide an explanation for all types of romantic relationships
question over direction of effect:
theory assumes dissatsifaction occurs when more costs or alternatives seem more attractive but Miller found people in committed relationships spent less time looking at images of attractive people. ‘less time spent lookng’ was a good predictor of the relaionship continuing after a 2 month follow up. rather than lack of profit leading to dissatisfaction it can be argue that we don’t consider profit until after we become dissatisfied
theory fails to consider equity in relationships:
focuses on comparison levels but ignores the fact that many partners desire fairness/ equity. Walster et al. found those receiving lost of rewards (over-benefitting) felt very guilty and less content than those receiving what they deserved. limited explanation of relationships as some based on equality not profit and only supported by a proportion of research findings
strength of equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships
research support:
Walster et al. asked students certain questions involving their relationship and feelings towards it. they found that those in an equitable relationship were more content and less angry and guilty than those in inequitable relationships. those who were overbenefitting felt guiltier and those who were under-benefitting felt angrier. supports idea of equity more important than profit
limitations of equity theory a a theory of romantic relationships
x3
not a valid theory in all cultures:
Aumer-Ryan et al. foundindividualist cultures linked equity to satisfaction but collectivist culture partners were most satisfied when over-benefitting. true of both men and women suggesting its a consistet social rather than gender based difference. limited theory as unable to account for all romantic relationships
individual differences:
Huesman et al. suggested some people are les sensitive to equity than others. some are happy to contribute more than they get (benevolents) and others believe they deserve to be over-benefitted and accept it without feeling guilty (entitleds). far from being a universal characteristic, desire for equity is subject to individual differences
satsifying relationships don’t become more equitable:
Berg & McQuinn found that equity didn’t increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples, as the equity theory would predict. the theory doesn’t distinguish between those relationships which ended and those which continued and variables such as self-disclosure appeared to be more important. strong criticism as was based on real-couples studied over time
strengths of Rusbult’s investment model as a thory of romantic relationships
x2
investment size is supported:
Le & Agnew did a meta-analysis of various relationships from a range of cultures. Found that 30% of commitment can be explained by satisfcation, 15% by comparison with alternatives anf 15% by investment size. Not only does this support the role of investment size emphasised in this model, but shows how this model is better at explaining commitment than SET as SET only accounts for 45% of commitment as opposed to 60% by Rusbult
can explain why people may stay in abusive relationships:
Rusbult & Marz found that women who reported making the greatest investment and who had the fewest attractive alternatives were the most likely to return to abusive partners. SET can’t account for this behaviour as the women are unsatisfied but still returning to the relationship due to their commitment. strength as explains the inexplicable behaviour of staying in an abusive relationship
limitations of Rubsult’s investment model as a theory of romantic relationships
x2
oversimplifies investment:
Goodfriend & Agnew argue that there’s more to investment than just the resources you have already put into the relationship. Early in a relationship, partners make very few actual investments but do invest in future plans which motivates the partners to commit so the plans can become a reality. original model is a limited explanation as fails to consider complexity of investment
issues with causality:
Rusbult’s model suggests satisfaction level, investment size and comparison with alternatives cause commitment but it could be the other way round and feelings of commitment lead to increased investment etc. also, finidngs supporting the model rely on strong correlations but impossible to establish directio of causation. reliance on correlational research and issue with direction of causality limits support for the model
limitations of Duck’s phase model as a theory of romantic relationships
x4
model is incomplete:
Rollie & Duck added a 5th resurrection phase in which ex-partners begin to use what they have learned from the last relationship to prepare for a future one. refined version also clarifies the point that movement through the stages is neither linear nor inevitable and partners may return to an earlier phase. suggests that the original phase model is only a partial explanation of the process of relationship breakdown
supporting evidence is based on retrospective data:
interviews about the process tend to take place after the breakdown as it is impossible to study breakdown in the earlier stages without interfering in the ongoing process. moreover, in the interviews, indiviudals may paint themselves in the best light (as suggested by the grave-dressing phase) and therefore data may not be reliable. means that the model is based on lmited info about the start of the breakdown process
focuses on how rather than why a breakdown occurs:
Flemlee suggests a ‘fatal attrcation’ theory stating that the attributes a partner found attractive at the start of a relationship can often become too much. e.g someone who was ‘so funny’ partner may decide to end relaionship as they ‘fail to take life seriosuly’. highlights the fact that Duck’s model only tells us about whats happens not why
much of the research is based on individualist cultures:
Moghaddam et al. propose relationships in individualist cultures are mostly voluntary and end quite often but in collectivist cultures they are more frequently ‘obligatory’ and less easy to end. whole concept of a relationship differs between cultures and therefore process of relationship breakdown is likely to differ. model can only be applied to some cultures and some types of relationship
strengths of virtual relationships in social media
x3
supporting research for the hyperpersonal model:
Whiity & Joinson found evidnce for both hyperhonest and dishonest online disclosures. questions asked online tended to be direct and intimate and responses direct and to the point, very different from face to face relationships. consistent with prediction that these are distinctive types of disclosure in computer-mediated communication
supporting evidence for anonymity causing increased slef-disclosure:
Joinson measured self dislocusre in two conditions: FtF vs. CMC discussions and CMC with anonymity vs. video link. self-disclosure signifcantly higher in both conditions involving anonymity and roughly the same level in FtF and on video link. supports suggestion that anonymity plays a crucial role in levels of self-disclosure and may even be more important a factor than CMC itself
supporting evidence for absence of gating:
McKenna et al. selected 31 male and female students and asked a pair to get to know each other in 2 20 minute periods. 2 conditions: both FtF and 1st CMC 2nd FtF. both people then asked how much they liked each other and liking strongest where CMC first. supports idea of a relationship being more intimate initially when obstacles that would affect FtF relationships are removed
