Relationships Flashcards
Evolution
Darwin- the product of adaptation through natural selection
Human reproductive behaviour
different mating strategies used by males and females
Sexual selection
selection of characteristics increasing reproductive success
Intra-sexual selection
female is passive and males compete for her
Inter-sexual selection
female is active and males compete
Socio-biological explanation
theory of relationships based on biological determinants
Male strategies (5)
1- courtship rituals 2- size (look up?) 3- mate guarding 4- sperm competition 5-sneak copulation
Female strategies (3)
1-Sexy sons hypothesis - females seek attractive males so they can have sons that look like the father
2-Handicap hypothesis - Zahavi 1975
females choose males with handicaps because it shows ability to survive which shows superior genetic quality
3-Courtship- choose strong men etc successful offspring
Eval evidence for buss
1) who and when
2) aim
3) procedure
4) findings
5) conclusion/results
Achim and Koch 2004
aim- to test Buss’s theory that males fear sexual infidelity more and women fear emotional infidelity more
procedure- 100 male and 100 female university students were given a questionnaire on romantic situations and the final question read that if you found out your partner was in a passionate sexual relationship
Filter theory
Kerckhoff and Davis 1962
series of filters that opearate at a different stage in forming a relationship
Filters in Filter Theory
Social demographic theory
what you personally want in a person (religion, age, which country you are from)
Similarity in attitudes
beliefs, values and interests which are similar
complementary filter
how people complete each others needs
Matching Hypothesis
Walster 1966
people choose partners as attractive as themselves
Computer dance study
Walster 1966
376 male and 376 female univeristy students, were told that they were going to be paired by a computer but that was a lie. during the ‘dance’ the participants filled in a questionnaire about their ‘date’. 4 to 6 months later, participants were contacted to see if they had gone of further dates with their partner at the dance
Results
Participants who were similarly attractive were not more liked than dates. Participants who were more attractive than their dates were liked more than their date
Conclusions
NOT SUPPORTED people like attractive people no matter how they look
Evaluation of Computer Dance
- ethics - participants were deceived
- low ecological validity
+ disproved matching hypothesis
Factors affecting attraction
self-disclosure
sharing intimate details increased attraction to a degree
Levels of self-disclosure
appropriateness - telling details at the right time
attributions - ‘only you know’
gender differences
content of disclosure
Self - disclosure research
Collins and Miller 1994
Meta analysis of studies about self-disclosure
it was found that those who gave intimate self-disclosure are more attractive than those who give less intimate self-disclosure. People also had a higher attraction rate to people they disclosed to.
This meta-analysis supports the idea that self-disclosure is a factor affecting attraction
Taylor et al online dating
Taylor 2011
observed activity logs on a dating website
it was found that users were more likely to message someone who was more attractive than them.
The results go against the matching hypothesis becaue the matching hypothesis states that you should be with someone who is as attractive as you.
Anisogamy
difference in amount of gametes that genders have
revoles around reproductive advantage
Sprecher 2013
Aim: investigate whether recriprical rather than one-sided self-disclosure is more influential in determining attraction
Procedure: 106 american graduates were paired in reciprical and non-reciprical dyads. People in each Dyad did not know each other and were disclosed over skype. in reciprical condition, Dyad members took turn in asking question and disclosing.
Non-reciprical condition, one person asked questions and other one disclosed in first interaction and swtiched roles. They were assessed for liking and closeness and preceived similarity and enjoyment
Findings:
Recriprical dyad’s had higher levels of factors than non-reciprical condition
turn-taking self-disclosure has a better than switching roles called extended reciprocity
Sprecher - year, aim, procedure, findings
2013- Aim: investigate whether recriprical rather than one-sided self-disclosure is more influential in determining attraction
Procedure: 106 american graduates were paired in reciprical and non-reciprical dyads. People in each Dyad did not know each other and were disclosed over skype. in reciprical condition, Dyad members took turn in asking question and disclosing.
Non-reciprical condition, one person asked questions and other one disclosed in first interaction and swtiched roles. They were assessed for liking and closeness and preceived similarity and enjoyment
Findings:
Recriprical dyad’s had higher levels of factors than non-reciprical condition
turn-taking self-disclosure has a better than switching roles called extended reciprocity
Study Kerckhoff and Davis
1962 Filter Theory Aim: which factors at certain stages in relationship influence 'progression towards permanence' Procedure Longitudinal 94 undergraduate American couples completed 2 questionnaires index of value of consensus FIRO-B test follow up survey 7 months later Findings: similarity in attitudes in significant in couples who dated less than 18 months complementarity of needs was for couples dating for 18 months of more
Evaluation of Filter Theory
+ Taylor et al 2010
85% of americans married someone from the same ethnic background
- less relevant because of multicultural society
- lack of temporal validity Levinger 1978 studies failed to replicate Kerckkoff and Davis study
- Davis, Anderson, Rusbault suggest people become more similar in different way and the more time they spend in a relationship not defining part of their attraction
