Relationships Flashcards
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour)
Inter-sexual selection
- Females make a greater investment of time and commitment during and after the birth of offspring
- This means she is more likely to select genetically fit fit partners who are able to provide resources
TRIVERS
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour)
Inter-sexual selection - ‘sexy sons hypothesis’
- ‘Runaway process’
- Mating with male with desirable, ‘sexy’ characteristics means it will be inherited by her son
- Increases chances that new generations will mate with her son
FISHER
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour AO3)
Anisogamy
- Survey of 10,000 adults in 33 countries
- Asked questions about age and attributes they look for
Females - Resource-related characteristics (financial prospects, ambition)
Males - Reproductive capacity (good looks, chastity, young)
Due to differences in sex cells
Buss
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour AO3)
Inter-sexual selection - ‘choosiness’
- Psychology students approached other students and sexually propositioned them
- No females accepted but 75% of males did
Clarke and Hatfield
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour AO3)
Ignores social influences
- Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are less dependent on men and are less likely to have mating preferences that involve resources
Bereczkei
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour AO3)
Waist-hip ratio
- Generally find all hip or waist sizes attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other is about 0.7
- The combination of wider hips and a smaller waist is an ‘honest signal’ of fertility and a sign the woman is not pregnant
Singh
(Sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour AO3)
Supporting research - lonely hearts research
Women - offer indicators of young, attractiveness (flirty, curvy, sexy)
Men - Offered resources (successful, fit, mature, ambitious)
Waynforth and Dunbar
(Self-disclosure theory)
Social penetration theory
- Involves reciprocal exchange of information
- When one person discloses information they show trust, so the other should do the same
- As they disclose more they further ‘penetrate’ the other’s lives
ALTMAN AND TAYLOR
(Self-disclosure theory)
Reciprocity
- As well as breadth and depth, there must be reciprocity
- Partner should respond with empathy and understanding, and share information of their own
- Balance needed for successful relationships
REIS AND SHAVER
(Self-disclosure A03)
Research support
- Strong correlation between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure in both partners
Sprecher and Hendrick
(Self-disclosure A03)
Cultural differences - sexual self-disclosure
- Men and women in the USA (individualist cultures) more likely to disclose sexual thoughts and preferences than in China (collectivist culture)
Tang
(Self-disclosure A03)
Relationship breakdown
- Disclosure involves intimate and honest conversation
- In relationship breakdown this can salvage a relationship or lead to breakup
Duck
(Physical attractiveness)
Evolutionary theory
- People with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- It is an ‘honest signal’ of genetic fitness; it cannot be faked
SHACKLETON AND LARSEN
(Physically attractiveness)
The halo effect
- Physically attractive people consistently rated as strong, kind, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
DION
(Physical attractiveness)
The matching hypothesis
- We ding the most attractive people desirable, but know we cannot necessarily date them
- We make a ‘compromise’ based on a value judgement about our own attractiveness and date people that we believe are of similar attractiveness
- Avoids rejection
WALSTER
(Physical attractiveness A03)
The matching hypothesis - dance
- Paired student randomly
- Pretty girls asked on second dates even if the boy was less attractive
Walster
(Physical attractiveness A03)
The matching hypothesis - photos
- 99 photos of real couples and randomly paired ones
- Real couples consistently rated as more alike in attractiveness
Murstein
(Physical attractiveness A03)
The matching hypothesis - dating website
- Analysed activity of 60 heterosexual users: ‘initators’
- Identifed people they sent messages to: ‘targets’
- Idea of matching had no influence on who was contacted
- Responses showed clear evidence of matching
Taylor
(Physical attractiveness A03)
The halo effect
- Less attractive people more likely to be convicted and receive an average 22 months longer sentence than unattractive people
- Seen as more trustworthy
Gunnell and Cici
(Physical attractiveness A03)
Individual differences - The macho scale
- Ppts asked how much they would like to pursue someone based on a photo and biological information
- Also completed macho scale questionnaire to assess sexist attitudes
- High scores more likely to target people based off of appearance
Towhey
(Physical attractiveness A03)
Cultural similarities
- Features such as small nose, large eyes, prominent cheekbones rated as attractive by white, black and hispanic males
Cunningham
(Filter theory)
Field of availables - field of desirables
- Social demography (accessibility)
- Similarity in attitudes (first 18 months)
- Complementarity (long-term)
KERCKHOFF AND DAVIS
(Filter theory A03)
Research support
- Similarity in personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical in the early stages of relationships
Winch
(Filter theory A03)
Failure to replicate research
- Many studies have failed to replicate the findings of the original study
- May be due to social changes
Levinger
(Filter theory A03)
Cause or effect? - Emotional convergence
- Cohabiting partners most similar in emotional responses: ‘emotional convergence’
Andreason
(Filter theory A03)
Cause or effect? - Attitude alignment effect
- We often bring attitudes in line with that of our partner: ‘attitude alignment effect’
Davis and Rusbult
(Filter theory A03)
Complemetarity or similarity?
- Similarity increases over time in long-term relationships
- Complementarity is not always a factor in relationships
Andreason
(Social exchange theory)
‘Minimax principle’
Comparison level (CL) - Based on previous relationships and observations of others Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt) - Based on alternative options
- Sampling stage
- Bargaining stage (beginning of relationship)
- Commitment stage (further into relationship)
- Institutionalisation (‘settled down’)
THIBAULT AND KELLEY
(Social exchange theory)
‘Balance sheet’
- Relationships are like business transactions
- We keep tabs on profits and losses
- If costs outweigh rewards we are in a ‘state of loss’
HOMANS
(Social exchance theory A03)
Do not accept economic metaphor
Two types of relatioships
- Exchance relationships (work colleagues) - Involve social exchange
- Communal relationships (romantic relationships) - Do not involve social exchange
Clark and Mills
(Social exchance theory A03)
Direction of cause and effect
- We do not consider alternatives constantly; this only occurs after dissatisfaction begins
Argyle
(Equity theory A03)
Supporting research - self-report
- Survey of 118 married couples
- 2 self-report scales to measure equity and satisfaction
- Equitable couples more satisfied
- Overbenefitters and underbenefitters unhappy
Utne
(Equity theory A03)
Contradictory findings
- Equity did not increase in longitudinal study of couples
- Equity also could not be used to distinguish between those who break up and those who did not
McQuinn
(Equity theory A03)
Types of relationship
Casual friendship - equity needed
Romantic relationships - mixed evidence for equity
Clark and Mills
(Equity theory A03)
Cultural differences
Couples in individualist cultures - equity important
Couples in collectivist cultures - happy to overbenefit
Aumer-Ryan
(Equity theory A03)
Individual differences
‘Benevolents’ - prepared to contribute more
‘Entitleds’ - believe they deserve to be overbenefitted
Huseman
(Investment model)
- Satisfaction level
- Comparisons with alternatives
- Investment size
(Intrinsic, extrinsic investments) - Relationships maintenance mechanisms
(AWFPR)
The main psychological factor for staying in relationships is not satisfaction, but commitment.
- Unsatisfied partners may stay because they have made an investment
RUSBULT
(Investment model A03)
Supporting evidence - Model is accurate
- Meta-analysis of 52 studies
- Satisfaction, comaparisons and investment size all predicted relationship commitment
- Representative: these types of relationships were more stable in all groups (homosexual relationships, other cultures)
Le and Agnew
(Investment model A03)
Oversimplification of investment - ‘future plans’
Extended model
- There is more to relationships than resources, particularly in the early days
- Added ‘future plans’
- We become committed in order to achieve these earlier on
Goodfriend and Agnew
(Investment model A03)
Real life application - abusive relationships
- Visited victims of domestic violence in a shelter
- Those most likely to return had greater investments in the relationship, and no attractive alternatives
Rusbult and Martz
(Phase model of relationship breakdown)
- Intra-psychic phase
- Diadic phase
- Social phase
- Grave-dressing phase
DUCK
(Duck’s phase model A03)
Oversimplified - added 5th ‘resurrection phase’
- ‘Resurrection stage’ - turning attention to future relationships using experience from recently-ended one
Duck and Rollie
(Duck’s phase model A03)
Doesn’t explain why breakdown occurs - ‘Fatal attraction hypothesis’
- Qualities originally found attractive can actually cause breakdown as we get ‘too much of what we asked for’
E.g. good sense of humour/ can’t take anything seriously
Flemlee
(Duck’s phase model A03)
Real life applications - relationships counselling
- In the intra-psychic stage, the person should focus on positive attributes their partner has
Duck
(Duck’s phase model A03)
Cultural bias
- Individualist cultures - relationships are generally voluntary and often come to an end
- Collectivist cultures - relationships are harder to end, involve greater family involvement and may be arranged
Moghaddam
(Virtual relationships: self-disclosure)
Reduced cues theory
- Computer-mediated communication (emails) less effective as the social cues involved in face to face communication are absent
E.g. tone of voice, facial expression
- Disinihibition - loss of social inhibitors, blunt, impersonal conversation
- De-individualisation - loss of individual indentity
SPROULL AND KIESLER
(Virtual relationships: self-disclosure)
The hyperpersonal model
- Greater self-disclosure
- Anonymity, absence of gating
Selective self-presentation - more time to think about responses
WALTHER
(Virtual relationships: self-disclosure)
‘Boom and bust’ phenomenon (hyperpersonal model)
- Relationships may also end sooner
- Initial excitement during self-disclosure not met by reality of face to face conversation
COOPER AND SPORTOLARI
(Virtual relationships: self-disclosure)
Strangers on a train effect (hyperpersonal model)
- Anonymity means we feel less accountable for behaviour
- More self-disclosure
Bargh
(Virtual relationships)
Absence of gating
- Allows relationships to ‘get off the ground’ where they may not usually
- Social/ physical barriers to dating less important
E.g. social anxiety, physical unattractiveness
MCKENNA AND BARGH
(Virtual relationships A03)
Dangers of absence of gating
- 54% of people on dating sites have been involved with someone misrepresenting themselves
Smith and Duggan
(Virtual relationships A03)
Absence of gating and social anxiety
- Followed up relationships of socially anxious people after 2 years
Formed online - 70% lasted
Formed offline - 50% lasted
McKenna and Bargh
(Virtual relationships A03)
Self-disclosure
- Ppts interacted via a chatroom and then face to face (believed it was 2 different people)
- Ppts more likely to prefer the ‘person’ they met online
- Online conversation was more intimate
McKenna
(Virtual relationships A03)
Relationships are multi-modal
- Most modern relationships are conducted online and offline
- Disclosure is very different online than face to face
Walther
(Parasocial relationships)
- Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS)
- Absorption -addiction model
Deficiency - absorption - addiction
MCCUTCHEON
(Parasocial relationships)
- Levels of parasocial relationships
Entertainment-social
Intense-personal
Borderline pathological level - Personality type explanation (ENP)
Entertainment-social - extraverted
Intense-personal - neurotic
Borderline pathological - psychotic
MALTBY
(Parasocial relationships)
Attachment explanation
- Insecure-resistant people most likely to form parasocial relationships
- Can be over-involved without fear of rejection and jealousy
AINSWORTH
(Parasocial relationships A03)
Body image and celebrity worship
- Link between the two in 14-16 year old boys and girls
- Girls in intense-personal relationships more likely to have poor body image
- May be a precursor to anorexia
Maltby
(Virtual relationships A03)
No evidence for attachment theory
- Measured attachment type and used CAS for 299 ppts
- Insecure ppts no more likely to form parasocial relationships
McCutcheon
(Virtual relationships A03)
Cultural similarities - Harry Potter
- Tendency to form parasocial relationship with Harry Potter seems to be universal
- Used online questionnaire
- Similar levels in Germany (individualist) and Mexico (collectivist)
Schmid and Klimmt
