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
Gender difference study (evolutionary theory) Key study
Buss study 1989
Aim: explore gender differences in mate selection
Procedure: Questionnaire with data from over 10,000 men and women from 37 different cultures
participants asked to rate characteristics on a four point scale.
FIndings:
Women value mates with rescources
Men value physical attractiveness and youth
both Sexes valued intelligence and kindness
Comparison level
standard of profitability formed from previous experiences in relationships and cultural norms (Social exchange theory)
Thibault and Kelly’s stages of relationships
Sampling Rewards and costs assessed Bargaining sources of profit and loss indentified Commitment relationship is established by predictable exchange of rewards Institutionalisation couple 'settle down'
Social exchange theory (SET)
thibault and Kelly 1964 economic maintenance of relationship maximise rewards and minimise costs
Equity theory
extension of SET
People are getting what they deserve in relationship
achieve fairness
feelings of guilt and shame if over-benefitting
feelings of anger and resentment if under-benefitting
Evaluation of SET
+ Brosman and De Waal 2003 female capuchin monkeys became angry if they did not receive grapes for playing a game
+
- equity sensitivity determines how much somebody would tolerate inequity Huseman et al indentified 3 categories of individuals benevolents, entitleds, and equity sensitives individual differences in concept of equity sensitivity
- Gender differences women see themselves as under-benefitted more than men De Maris et al 2010 women have a greater focus on relationship
- cultural differences equity is not as important in non-western cultures
- problem of causality reasons why inequity is unclear
Clark 1984 argued that in most relationships couples do not think in reward and equity Clark if they do marriage is in trouble when problems in marriage arise, they focus on bad habits
Investment model (name, year, 4 parts)
Rusbult 1980 model of committment stability over relationship 1- satisfaction relationship fills persons needs 2- comparison individual feels that they are 3- investment size 4- commitment level 3 levels lead to stability of relationships
Le and Agnew Investment model main study (date and what they did, part of what theory)
Le and Agnew 2003 meta analysis of 52 studies 5 countries, 11,000 people involving looking at satisfaction level and committment quality of alternatives and investment findings: satisfaction level, quality of alternatives and investment size committed staying in relationships too simplistic explanation
Equity Theory Research that supports it
- hatfield 1979
asked newly weds what their partner contributed to the relationship
least satified were those who underbenifitted
next least satified were those who over-benifitted
equal relationships were the most satisfactory
Limitation of equity theory example
Arygle 1988 found that one over benefitted men were as satisfied as they were in equal marriages
over benifitted were least satisfied
Investment model Evaluation
+ supported by Le and Agnew study
+ supported by models across all different cultures
- difficult to measure committment
- relies on self-report measures that is subjective
- can’t explain abusive people in relationships
- future is important Agnew lose future plans
SET key study
Kurdik and Schmitt 1986
Procedure:
investigated importance of social exchange factors in 44 straight married couples. 50 same sex male couples. 56 same sex female couples. each couple lived together and had no children
Findings
greater relationship satisfaction was associated with A perception of benefits of current relationship and B comparing benefits in other relationship’s
goes against evolutionary
Equity Theory Key study
Stafford and Canary 2006
Aim: equity and satisfaction predicted use of maintenance strategies in marriage
Procedure: 200 married couples completed questionnaires on equity and relationship satisfaction
Findings: satisfaction highest for spouses who perceived relationship as equitable followed by over-benefitted partners then by under-benefitted partners
relationship between equity and marital happiness = complementary
satisfaction level (investment model)
postive and negative emotions experienced in a relationship influenced by how partner fulfills the most important needs
Quality of alternatives (investment model)
looking at other people and seeing if relationship will be better
Investment size (investment Model)
measure of all resources in relationship
Committment Level (investment model)
likelihood of persisting with current relationship
Evaluation of Investment model
+ real world application model explains why individuals + may persist in abusive relationships despite low satisfaction they may lack alternatives or have too much invested in their partner (ending relationship is too expensive)
+ Li 2018 confirmed relationship between the commitment level and the investment on social media site wechat study shows that more investment = more commitment
- difficult to measure commitment is hard to measure, Rusbult knew this and came up with IMS, which is a self-report technique and people can lie
- some relationships may persist because of future plans that the couple has together not because of other factors in relationship Goodfriend and Agnew 2008
Duck Phase model of breakdown definition
a model of relationship breakdown that describes the different phases people go through during the breakup of a romantic relationship
Duck’s four phases of relationship breakdown (4)
1-Intrapsychic phase
One partner feels dissatisfaction and thinks about breaking up but does not talk about it
2- Dyadic phase
Individuals confront partner and talk about feelings
uncertainty, anxiety, hostility, complaints talking about relationships
3- Social phase
Social phase
go public look at other people for support, talk to friends and family, sides may be taken
4-Grave-dressing phase
each partner tries to present themselves as loyal
Evaluation of Duck’s relationship breakdown
- fails to reflect possibility of growth after breakdown added resurrection process in 2006 personal growth because of the breakup
- ethical issues person might want to protect themselves
+ Tashiro and Frazier 2003 92 undergraduates found that after breakdown, individuals feel better when they focus on the situation not personal flaws
+ has real world application - stresses commication in relationship breakdown helps prevent breakup
+ Hatfield et al 1984 individuals burdened by resentment leads to withdrawal to consider their position
+reserrection process |(rollie and duck 2006)
Gating
barriers that limit oppurtunities for the less attractive shy or less socially skilled so they can form relationships in face to face encounters
Virtual relationships
relationships conducted through the internet rather than face to face
Self-disclosure in virtual relationships
revealing personal information varies in public and private broadcasting self-disclosure sharing personal information in a public situation edited version of the self
levels of self-disclosure in virtual relationships (include study to support this)
- higher levels of self-disclosure usually is more intimate
- Rubin 1975 strangers on a train if you are on a train people disclosed more personal information to strangers than people they know
gates in virtual relationships (and research)
absense of gating in computer mediated communication is that the true self of gated individuals is more likely to be active in internet relationship than real life (Zhao 2008)
Eval of Virtual Relationships
+ tamir and mitchell 2012 found increased MRA activity in two brains regions associated with rewards when people are talking about themselves
+ Baker and Oswald 2010 those who scored high in questionnaire for shyness and facebook use was associated with higher perceptions of friendship quality
- dangers of internet catfishing
- online and offline worlds are separate
Parasocial relationships
one-sided relationships that occur with media personalities outside of an individual’s social network
Possible reasons for parasocial relationship
it makes few demands
don’t risk rejection
more likely in people who are similar to the individual and attractive to the individual
Levels of parasocial relationships (name year 3)
McCutcheon 2002 Celebrity attitude scale Entertainment-social discussing media personalities with friends intense-personal obsessive and compulsive borderline pathological uncontrollable fantasies and celebrities can turn into a psychosis
Absorption Addiction Model
McCutcheon 2002
people become psychologically absorbed with celebrity life as a form of escapism. absorption can become addictive initial interest then is developed through absorption then addiction. divorced from reality
Parasocial relationship key study
Celebrity worship syndrome
McCutcheon and Houran 2003
Aim: assess whether interest in media personalities divides into pathological or non-pathological
Procedure: 600 participants completed personality test and were interviewed about interest in media personalities. Participants also rated statement based on feelings towards celebrity
Findings:
one third of participants showed celebrity worship syndrome. 20% followed for entertainment-social. 10% were intense-personal. 1% were borderline pathological
Conclusions: refutes the view that celebrity worship is divisible. those that have intense attitudes towards celebrities are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and social dsyfunction
Attachment theory explanation
PSR’s can be formed with those who have insecure childhood attachments. Insecure-resistant attachment styles are more likely to develop this because they need close relationship but fear rejection
Three properties of attachment
Weiss 1991
1. proximity seeking reduce distance between themselves and the celebrity
2. secure base presence of attachment figure provides a sense of security
3. protest at disruption
prolonged distress after your separated from attachment figure
Evaluation of Parasocial relationships
+ Schmid and Klimmt 2011 found fans from Meixco and Germany showed very similar patterns of PSR - universal
+Maltby 2003
used Eysenck personality questionnaire found entertainment-social level associated with extraversion and intense-personal with neurotism explains why higher PSR levels are associated with poor mental health
- Absorption addiction model critisised for a description rather than an explanation and the form it may take but not looking at what causing it
- a lot of research is correlational so cause and effect cannot be established and relies of self-report measures
Key study evolutionary theory/sexual selection
Buss
