Relationships Flashcards
Relationships
The evolutionary explanation for partner preferences; including the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour.
Cunningham (1986) - what do males find attractive in females?
He symmetrically varied the size of females faces: eyes, nose and mouth.
Men were more attracted to features associated with young children - large eyes, small noses and chin, narrow cheeks, wide smiles and dilated pupils were also found to be attractive
Waynforth (1995) - what do females find attractive in males?
Masculine facial features including square jawline, ridged eyebrows, small eyes, thin lips and a symmetrical face were preferred by women.
What was found attractive to both?
Young (1998) - symmetry was preferred by both; the overall ‘balance’ look of the face.
Longer-than-average legs were preferred (Pawlowski, 2008) - found that 5% longer-than-average legs were seen as more attractive.
Qualities preferred by men
David Buss (1989) — cross-culture study of partner preference.
Men valued physical attractiveness more than women
Men valued women who were younger than themselves
Qualities preferred by women
David Buss (1989) — cross-culture study of partner preference
Women valued financial capacity of potential partners.
Women found ambition and industriousness/final success more attractive than men did.
Sexual selection
A key part of Darwin’s evolutionary theory, explaining apparent non-adaptive features of animals.
Evolution is driven by competition for mates in which attributed behaviours increase reproductive success.
Anisogamy
The differences between male and female gametes.
- socio-behaviourists propose that human reproductive behaviours to engage in casual sex is the consequence to Anisogamy.
Inter-sexual selection
Between the sexes, he strategies that one sex uses to select the other.
Trivers (1972) - points to there greater investment in offspring before and after birth. Poor mate means more costly to invest in.
Intra-sexual selection
Strategies within the sex to promote selection over competition.
Dion et al (1972)
Found physically attractive people are rated as kind, strong, social and successful; leads to self-fulfilling behaviour causing positivity towards them.
Walster and Walster (1969) - Matching Hypothesis Theory
Individuals assess their own value from the view of others. When initiating relationships they make realistic choices (likelihood of acceptance and desirable alternatives).
Best available candidates from those whose social desirability equal theirs. ‘Realistic’ means less chance of rejection.
Self-disclosure
When a person reveals intimate and/or personal information about themselves to another person.
Collins and Miller (1994)
Types of self-disclosure
Mutual One-sided Neutral - casual Intense - personal Optimum - too personal
Norms of self-disclosure
People should show only moderate levels of self-disclosure in early stages of relationships.
Dertega and Grzelak (1979) - it shouldn’t be so personal that it seems in discriminate for telling a stranger nor so impersonal they cant learn.
Cooper and Sportolari (1997): Disclosure online
‘Boom and Bust’ - the ‘anonymity’ of online interactions can promote a comfort to reveal mor personal information that face-to-face interactions.
Relationships can get intense quickly and trust and experiences are not their to give a foundation for the relationship.
Buss (1989)
Investigated what males and females looked for in a long-term partner.
-10,000 people form 37 cultures where asked to rate 18 characteristics using the 4-point scale (3=very important. 0=irrelevant).
- women desire men with financial prospects.
Men desired women with youth and physical attractiveness.
Collins and Miller (1994)
Using meta-analysis they found the self-disclosure has a central role in the development and maintenance of a romantic relationships. People disclosure at intimate levels and it had a ‘halo’ effect meaning people liked those they’d ‘given’ to and those who had ‘given’ back.
Sprecher (2013)
Investigated whether reciprocal self-disclosure was more influential in determining attraction
156 US undergraduates took part in the experiment based on self-disclosure over Skype — they took turns in asking and answering questions (reciprocal condition).
They assessed each interaction ( liking, closeness, similarities and the enjoyment).
Conclusion = turn taking extended reciprocity and resulted in a positive outcome.
Filter theory
We choose romantic partners by using a series of filters that narrow down the ‘field of avaliables ’ from which we might eventually make our choices.
Filters
Are criteria which help people to sift through all potential partners to choose the right one.
Social demography (1st filter)
Refers to factors that affect the chances of partners meeting e.g. social background, geographical locations, ethnicity, social class, religion etc.
Proximity effects availability.
Homogamy =relationships with someone culturally similar.
Similarity in attitudes (2nd filter)
Having social defines in common means they are likely to hold similar attitudes and beliefs
Complimentary to of needs (3rd filter)
The ability of each partners to meet each others needs.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962):Procedure
Longitudinal study of 94 student couples in short-term relationships in the US. Each partners completed two questions (similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs).
7 months later the did another questionnaire to assess how close they felt to their partner.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962):Findings
For short-term couples (less than 18 months) similarity of attitudes and beliefs was the most significant predictor for closeness.
For long-term (more than 18 months) complementarity of needs predicted how close they felt about each other.
- Helps determine the levels of filters
Social Exchange Theory
Profit and loss - focuses on the rewards of a relationship against the costs of a relationship. Those with greater rewards are most likely to be satisfied with the relationship.
Comparison Level (CL)
Used to judge whether someone offers something better or worse than expected.
If a potential profit is greater than the comparison level the relationship will be judged worthwhile.
Previous unpleasant relationships can cause lower comparison levels.
Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLA)
Assessed profit of a relationship this is when the person weighs up a potential increase in rewards from the different partner minus any cost with ending the current relationship.
Equity Theory
Claims that people are most comfortable when what they get out of a relationship is roughly equal to what they put into it.
Over benefited = may feel pity, guilt, shame etc.
Under benefited = may feel anger, sadness and resentment
Th greater the inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and stress.
Stafford and Canary (2206):Procedure
Interested in how equity predicted the use of maintenance strategies in marriage
Procedure - 200 married couples completed measure of equity and satisfaction. They were asked questions about their use of relationship maintenance such as assurance, sharing task and positivity.
Stafford and Canary (2006):Findings
Satisfaction was highest for partners who saw their relationship as equitable. Under benefitted husbands reported lower levels of maintenance strategies compared to over benefitted husbands.
Rusbult’s Investment Theory
The investment model says that the stability of a relationship over time is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship.
Investment Model
Satisfaction - how well the relationship fulfils the person’s needs.
Comparison with alternatives - the extent that needs could be better fulfilled in another relationship.
Investment - the amount they feel they’ve put into a relationship.
Le and Agnew (2003): Procedure
Meta-analysis of 52 studies in the late 1970’s and 1990’s. Explored different components of the model.
Produced over 11,000 participants in 5 countries.
Le and Agnew (2003): Findings
Across all levels satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment side were highly correlated with relationship commitment.
The correlation between commitment an stay or leave behaviour was significant at 0.47 - high commitment levels = most likely to stay.
Virtual relationships in social media
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships; effects of absence of gating on the nature of virtual relationships.
Gating
Features and characteristics that prevent two people getting to know each other face to face - available features such as attractiveness and age are used to categorise individuals as potential partners.
Parasocial Theory
An individual is attractive to another person (normally a celebrity), who is usually unaware of the existence of the person who has created the relationship.
Giles and Maltby (2006) - Celebrity Attitude Scale, with 3 levels of parasocial relationships.
Entertainment-social: fans are attracted to celebrities follow them, keep up with them, watch them etc. Majority of people engage in these.
Intense-personal: involves a deeper level of involvement and reflects the intensive feeling about the celebrity.
Borderline-psychological: identifies the celebrity’s success and failures. Over identification and uncontrollable behaviour about their lives.
The Absorption Theory
When an individual becomes psychological lay absorbed with a celebrity or individual to establish a sense of fulfilment. The motivational forces driving this can take an addictive component, leading to more extreme behaviour to sustain the parascoial relationship.
McCutcheon (2002)
People create these relationships due to the lack of relationship in their won life. There are fewer demands and there is no risk of rejection or real relationship.
Involves ‘effortless focusing of attention’ which allows them to think its special.
Borederline-pathological: they become ‘addicted’ to the person and have a stronger involvement to feel connected to them.
The Attachment Theory
An explanation of the formation of an emotional bond between two people (infant and caregiver). This is a two-way process and leads to certain behaviours such as proximity seeking.
Weiss (1991)
Proximity seeking: attempts to reduce the distance between themselves and their attachment figure.
Secure base: provides a sense of security and a ‘safe heaven’ that allows them to explore.
Protest at disruption: attachment may be due to prolonged distress following separation and loss of an attachment figure.
Cole and leets (1999)
One people are more likely to develop PSRs through the concepts of the attachment style. Willingness to form PSRs is related to attachment beliefs.
Insecure-resistant: were most likely to enter PSRs.
Avoidant: concerned that others will not reciprocate ones desires for intimacy.
Relationship Breakdown
A model of relationship breakdown that describes the different phases that people go to.
When one partner in a relationship becomes distressed with the way the relationship is conducted (5 phases).
First phase
The individual realises they are not long willing or able to stand their dissatisfaction of their relationship.
Intrapsychic Process
Second phase - the partner who is dissatisfied beings to consider whether they are better out of the relationship (an alternative).
Feel resentment due to being under-benefitted.
Don’t verbally communicate but may display it.
The Dyadic Phase
Third phase - the individual will confront their partners and discuss their feelings.
They may feel guilt and anger.
Forces that bond them (a house, children etc.) and costs of being together (social and economic costs) become factors that they must to into consideration - bring in other people to help (counsellor).
The Social Phase
Fourth phase - friends and family become aware of what is happening. This is when the distress of one or both partners becomes public.
Becomes harder to ignore the problem. Others may take sides and offer advice; could speed up the couples decision.
The Grave-dressing Phase
Fifth and final phase - after ending the relationship, couples try to justify their actions. Each partner must presets themselves as trustworthy and loyal in order to attracted a new partner.
Strategically re-interpret their views of their ex-partner.
