Relationships Flashcards
Differences in reproductive behaviour due to anisogamy SUPPORT
BUSS
Procedure:
- Survey of 10,000 adults in 33 countries.
- Questions related to partner preferences
Findings:
- Females emphasised importance of resources e.g. financial prospects.
- Males emphasised importance of reproductive capacity e.g. youth.
Inter-sexual selection (females) SUPPORT
CLARK AND HATFIELD
Procedure:
- Male/female psychology students approached others on campus.
- ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’
Findings:
- 75% males agreed, no females did.
Intra-sexual selection (males) SUPPORT
SINGH
- What matters to male preference is waist to hip ratio; any size but ratio of one to another 0.7.
- ‘Honest’ signal of fertility (and no pregnancy).
Self-disclosure SUPPORT
SPRECHER AND HENDRICK
- Interviews/questionnaires found strong positive correlation between self-disclosure and satisfaction.
- Correlation significant at p=0.1.
LAURENCEAU
- Analysis of daily diary entries showed self-disclosure linked to higher intimacy in married couples.
- Defined terms such as ‘intimacy’.
Self-disclosure AGAINST
TANG
- Reviewed research into impact of sexual self-disclosure in different countries.
- Self-disclose more in USA (individualist) than China (collectivist) and linked to satisfaction in respective cultures.
Halo effect SUPPORT
PALMER AND PETERSON
Physically attractive people rated more politically knowledgeable and competent even when knew they had no expertise.
Physical attractiveness AGAINST
TOWHEY
- Asked ppts how much liked an individual based on picture and biographical information.
- Also completed MACHO scale questionnaire measuring sexism.
- Those who scored more highly on the scale were more influenced by attractiveness.
Matching hypothesis SUPPORT
FEINGOLD
Meta-analysis of 17 studies found significant correlation between ratings of real partners.
Matching hypothesis AGAINST
WALSTER
- Original research didn’t support matching hypothesis.
- Unreliable measure of attractiveness; only had a few seconds to judge.
TAYLOR
- Studied activity logs of online dating sites (measured actual dating choices).
- Sought meetings with those more physically attractive than them.
Physical attractiveness SUPPORT
CUNNINGHAM
- Female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose attractive.
- For white, Hispanic and Asian males.
Filter theory original study
KERKHOFF AND DAVIES
Procedure:
Compared attitudes and personalities of students in ST (under 18 months) and LT relationships.
Findings:
- Found more likely to form relationships with those of similar social demography.
- Similarities in attitudes most important in ST relationships.
- Similarity less important over time, replaced with need for complementary in LT relationships.
Factors changing over time SUPPORT
WINCH
- Supports importance of similarities in personality, interests and attitudes in early stages.
- Complementarity important in later stages.
Demographics causing attraction AGAINST
ANDERSON
- Longitudinal study.
- Found evidence for emotional convergence; cohabiting participants became more similar in emotional responses over time.
DAVIS AND RUSBULT
- Attitude alignment effect in LT relationships, attitudes align with partner’s.
- Similarity a result of attraction not cause.
SET SUPPORT
RUSBULT
Procedure:
- Survey of 34 college students measuring rewards, costs, investment and satisfaction every 17 days.
Findings:
- Increase in rewards increases satisfaction, which in turn increased commitment (also due to decrease in alternatives).
- Rewards increased over time along with satisfaction and commitment.
Equity increases satisfaction SUPPORT
UTNE
- Survey of 118 recently married couples aged 16-40 who had been together at least 2 years before marriage.
- Measured equity on 2 self-report scales.
- Those more equitable more satisfied.
WALSTER
Procedure:
- Interviews with 500 students about relationships.
- Participants also completed ‘Walster’s Global Measures of Participants’ perceptions of Inputs, Outcomes and Equity/Inequity scale’.
Findings:
- Equitable relationships were content, happy and less angry/guilty.
- Inequitable relationships were less content/happy for both and overbenifitters felt more guilty/angry.
- 3.51 vs 2.70 for level of content.
