Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
What does the evolutionary explanation for partner preference suggest?
A
- explains the evolution of characteristics that confer a reproductive advantages
- sexual selection - certain traits are selected as attractive and are passed on to offspring, naturally selected, such advantageous genes increase in gene pool
- human reproductive behaviour - sexual behaviours that may lead to reproduction
- anisogamy - differences in male/female gametes results in different behaviours (fertile females are rare resource, but no shortage of fertile males) leads to different mating strategies (females more choosy) and two types of sexual selection:
- intrasexual selection (same-sex contest, compete for access to other sex, successful traits pass on e.g strength, leads to male-female dimorphism - accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics)
- intersexual selection (between sexes, one sex evolves preference for qualities in prospective mates, this determines the areas in which other sex competes)
2
Q
What is the research support for sexual selection/evolutionary explanation?
A
- Singh (1993) found preference of hourglass shape universally, with waist-hip ratio preference of 0.7 (sign of fertility therefore indicates male preference for visual signs of fertility that would be sexually selected, cross-cultural supports evolutionary perspective)
- Buss (1989) looked at 37 cultures and found preferences across cultures of: men valued physical attractiveness more, and valued those younger than themselves, women valued resources/financial qualities, both valued intelligence/kindness - later did cross-cultural study on actual marriages and found men do actually choose to marry younger women and those who divorce marry increasingly younger women
- Miller’s lap dancing study found women in ovulatory phase earned twice the amount of tips compared to those who were not (suggests a preference for non-visual cues too e.g. possibly pheromones indicating ovulation)
3
Q
What are the limitations of the sexual selection/evolutionary explanation?
A
- Bernstein argues that gender differences may stem from cultural traditions than evolved characteristics e.g. women have been denied access to economic/political power in many cultures so may value such resources more e.g. one study found women valued access to resources far more in cultures where status/educational opportunities were limited
- Kenrick (1995) found both heterosexual and homosexual males preferred younger partners as both groups aged and this continued across adulthood (but homosexuals cannot reproduce therefore is the theory applicable to this group? no need to prefer younger males if not for fertility nature. however may suggest male preferences are hardwired in the brain
4
Q
What are the factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships?
A
- physical attractiveness
- self disclosure
- filter theory
5
Q
How does physical attractiveness affect attraction?
A
- research into partner preference indicates physical attractiveness as important in mate selection (e.g. in evolutionary explanation for partner preference - certain traits e.g. strength are selected as attractive and are passed on to offspring)
- Meltzer (2014) found wife attractiveness to be related to husbands satisfaction for the first 4 years of marriage, this was not true of wife’s satisfaction however - suggesting sex-differences in importance on physical attractiveness
- matching hypothesis (Murstein, 1972) proposes that we seek someone of a similar level of attractiveness as ourselves due to a fear of rejection and need to achieve balance between partners.
- however Brown. 1986 suggests this is due to learnt sense of what’s ‘fitting’ than a fear of being rejected, ie we adjust our expectations of rewards in line with what we believe we have to offer
6
Q
What is the research surrounding the influence of physical attractiveness in attraction and the matching hypothesis?
A
- Walster (1966) ‘computer dance’ study where students were judged on physical attractiveness and paired randomly for a dance, questionnaire after found the more physically attractive students were liked more by their partners - however 6 months later found partners were more likely to have dated if they were more similar in physical attractiveness (suggests initial attraction to be toward most attractive but in LT the matching hypothesis is true)
- Walster and Walster repeated the study but students had met beforehand (had more time to think about the qualities they were looking for), found students expressed most liking for those of same level of attractiveness as themselves (suggests when physical attractiveness is the only thing to go on we are most attracted to the most physically attractive, but if we have met the individual we go for those with similar attractiveness, supporting matching hyp.)
- Towhey (1979) gave m/f participants photos and info on individuals and asked how much theyd like them - judgements of those scoring high on Macho Scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness than those who did not (suggests physical attractiveness may be more important to some than others ie those scoring high in terms of sexism value it more - not supportive of matching hypothesis as individual differences may be at play)
- matching hyp has been extended to suggest couples can achieve a match in other ways e.g. attractive woman may be attracted to physically unattractive man with other attractive features e.g. wealth - referred to as ‘complex matching’ (compensatory assets)
7
Q
How does self-disclosure affect levels of attraction?
A
- self-disclosure: voluntary sharing of private aspects with another
- leads to greater feelings of intimacy (people prefer those who disclose intimate details than those who don’t, people reveal more to those they like)
- reciprocity norms: people expect others to return the same amount of disclosure they give
- type of self disclosure linked to liking, stability, and predictive of relationship satisfaction (Sprecher found disclosure of personal achievements and info on previous relationships to have greater influence than neutral types of disclosure)
- Sprecher found overall disclosure to indicate whether the couples stayed together over 4 years
- relationships formed over internet have higher levels of disclosure so attraction - “boom and bust” phenomenon suggests this intensity lacks trust/true knowledge of the person which causes the relationship’s demise
- western cultures engage more in self-disclosure and there are gender differences cross-culturally e.g. Nakanishi found Japanese women prefer lower levels of personal convos (therefore self disclosure may be moderated by culture)
8
Q
What is the research surrounding self-disclosure’s impact on levels of attraction?
A
- Collins and Miller found those who engage in intimate disclosure are more liked than those who disclose lower levels - people like others as a result of disclosing to them
- Sprecher paired students in reciprocal and non-reciprocal conditions and found those in reciprocal condition reported more liking/closeness/enjoyment than the other condition (this difference remained after switching roles in non-reciprocal condition - supports role of reciprocity norms)
- also found disclosure to be predictive of whether the couple stayed together more than 4 years (therefore disclosure important to development/maintenance/stability of relationships)
- Dindia and Allen’s meta-analysis of studies found both m/f disclose more to same-sex listener, women disclosed more than men if the listener was friend/family, but when listener was a stranger there was no difference (suggests disclosure to be affected by the listener and a gender difference)
- Nakanishi found Japanese women prefer lower levels of personal convos than men, and that this is opposite to patterns in the west (therefore self disclosure may be moderated by culture)
- relate to virtual relationships… (e.g. disclosure may be greater online/boom-bust phenomenon)
9
Q
What does the filter theory suggest with regards to attraction?
A
- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)
- suggests relationships to develop through three ‘filters’, in which the ‘field of availables’ become narrowed down into the ‘field of desirables’ (potential partners):
- social demography (variables e.g. age/location/socioeconomic background exert influence without us knowing ie more likely to mix with those geographically close, therefore ‘field’ from which we choose partners is small. feel similar to those with similar demography so more likely to find them attractive)
- similarity in attitudes/values (couples sharing beliefs communicate easier and relationship will progress, found attitude similarity to be central in early stages of relationship and best predictor of stability)
- complementarity of needs (this filter becomes important with established couples in fairly LT relationships; whether couple fits together and meets one another’s needs, causes mutual satisfaction, people attracted to those whose needs are harmonious with own)
10
Q
What is the research surrounding the filter theory?
A
- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) asked couples to complete questionnaires over 7 months, found that ST couples (less than 18 months) were most concerned with similarity of attitudes/values as predictor of how close they felt to eachother, whereas LT couples’ predictor of closeness was psychological compatability/ability to meet eachother’s needs (supports sequence of filters)
- Byrne (1970) found individuals are more likely to be attracted to those who share common attitudes
- however Levinger et al (1970) found no evidence that similar attitudes or complementarity of needs influenced permanence pr length of relationships - Davis and Rusbult identified an ‘attitude alignment effect’ in LT relationships whereby partners have tendency to bring their attitudes into line with eachother (suggests similarity may be a product of attraction and not a cause)
- rise of online dating has reduced importance of demography e.g. more likely to meet those of different cultures or geographical areas than before (may be that attitude similarity comes first in such relationships, temporal validity questioned as social demography no longer relevant)
11
Q
What are the (economic) theories of romantic relationships?
A
- social exchange theory
- equity theory
- investment model
12
Q
What does the social exchange theory suggest?
A
- assumes relationships are evaluated in terms of profit
- relationships comprise of costs and benefits - if benefits outweigh costs then the relationship is in a state of profit
- individuals strive to maximise profits and create more attraction - satisfaction/commitment dependent on profit
- rewards/costs are subjective and change over time
- perception of profitability/satisfaction is determined by “comparison level” of past relationships and “comparison level for alternatives” (profit involved with potential partners)
13
Q
What are the strengths of the social exchange theory?
A
- can be applied to both satisfactory/unsatisfactory relationships and can account for maintenance of abusive relationships (using comparison levels)
- mills and clark found some couples to be high in “exchange orientation” and that those couples did evaluate their relationship in terms of costs and profit
- however also identified“communal couples” primarily concerned with needs of their partner - therefore explanation doesn’t account for them
14
Q
What are the limitations of the social exchange theory?
A
- Argyle found costs/benefits monitoring only occurs after we have become dissatisfied - Duck (1994) argues individuals only consider alternatives once dissatisfied
- low cross-cultural validity (developed in USA with western ideals of individualism and capitalism in mind, assumes free choice over partners, relationships are temporary, Moghaddam suggests economic theories can only be applied to western cultures etc)
15
Q
What does the equity theory suggest?
A
- extension of social exchange theory
- assumes individuals assume relationships in terms of costs and rewards
- but there is an expectation that relationships should be fair ie rewards received should be proportional to those given (unlike SET) - therefore not about the size of rewards, just that they are equal
- initial ratio is not important, but more the changes in this
- lack of fairness results in dissatisfaction - once this happens, individual is motivated to reestablish equity, either by reducing inputs or increasing rewards (restoring actual equity), restoring psychological equity by distorting reality, or leaving the relationship
- perception of equity is key, not actual equity - equity can be defined differently between partners
