Relationships: AO1 Flashcards
1
Q
Sexual Selection
A
- attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring
2
Q
Anisogamy
A
- the basis of human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy which refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
- sperm: small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age and don’t need much energy to be produced
- eggs: relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require a significant investment of energy
- these differences mean that males and females need to use different startegies to achieve reproductive success
- females produce eggs at high physiological cost, this females prioritise quality over quantity in reproduction
- males produce sperm at a low physiological cost, as a result males aim to mate with many females to maximise the number of offspring, prioritising quantity over quality
3
Q
Intrasexual Selection
A
- strategies between males to be the one that’s selected
- has behavioural consequences such as aggression as males compete with eachother
4
Q
Intersexual Selection
A
- strategies males use to select females or females use to select males
- preferred strategy of females
- Trivers 1972 pointed out that females make a greater investment of time, commitment and resources so are choosier as consequences are much more serious if wrong partner picked
5
Q
Runaway Process
A
over time we would see an increase in a particular trait because women would mate with males with that trait, to procude sons with that trait and daughts who also have a preference for that trait
6
Q
Biological Marketplace
A
- Noe and Hammerstein 1995
- genes that show attractive features are more ‘saleable’ and will be chosen
7
Q
Sexy Sons Hypothesis
A
- Ronald Fisher 1930
- women will choose men with good genes so that their sons will have good genes and will also then be selected by women to mate with
8
Q
Sexual Dimorphism
A
the difference in appearance between males and females of the same species
9
Q
Parental Investment
A
the sex that invests the most in its young (women) will evolve to be more selective in choice of partner
10
Q
Self Disclosure
A
- Jourard 1971
- revealing personal information about yourself
- romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops
- strengthens a romantic bond when used appropriately
11
Q
Social Penetration Theory
A
- Altman and Taylor 1973
- gradual process of revealing inner self to someone else
- involves reciprocal exchange
- 2 elements: breadth and depth
- metaphor of many layers of onion: disclose a lot at the start (breadth) but often superficial and ‘on the surface’ (depth) like outer layers of an onion
- gets deeper as relationship goes on, balance of self disclosure between both partners in successful relationship which increases intimacy
- depenetration: dissatisfied partners self disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship
12
Q
Physical Attractiveness: Symmetrical Faces
A
- people with symmetrical faces are perceived to be more attractive as this is a sign of good genes (Shackelford and Larsen 1997) that can’t be faked
- associated ‘robust’ genes are passed onto future offspring
13
Q
Physical Attractiveness: Neotenous Faces
A
- people are attracted to faces with baby face features
- e.g. widely separated large eyes, delicate chin and small nose
- triggers a protective or caring instint
14
Q
Physical Attractiveness: Halo Effect
A
- the belief that someone who is physically attractive also has a pretty personality to match
- we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have and they are almost universally positive
- Dion et al (1972) found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
15
Q
Matching Hypothesis
A
- Walster et al 1966
- suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (as well as personality and intelligence)
- two hypotheses: An individual would most often choose to date a partner of approximately their own attractiveness, The more socially desirable a person is the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.
- They argue that individuals looking for a partner will also be influenced by the notion of realistic choices: The desirability of the potential match (what they want), The probability of the person saying ‘yes’ (what they think they can get).
16
Q
Filter Theory
A
- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term relationships and devised filter theory to explain how such romantic relationships form and develop
- in terms of partner choice we all have a field of availables, the entire set of potential romantic partners
- there are 3 main factors that act as filters to narrow down our range of partner choice to a field of desirables
17
Q
3 Factors in Filter Theory
A
1) social demography
2) similarity in attitudes
3) complementarity
18
Q
Filter Theory: Social Demography
A
- variables that determine the likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place
- the range of people that are realistically available for us to meet
- these are the types of people we tend to find most attractive initially since similarity makes communication easier and we’ve something immediately in common with them
- e.g. ethnicity, race, religion, social class, education
19
Q
Filter Theory: Similarity in Attitudes
A
- involves psychological characteristics specifically agreement on basic values
- this helps to promote self disclosure and deeper communication
- found to be best predictor of relationship becoming more stable and permanent
- without similarity partners may date for a while then relationship will fizzle out
20
Q
Filter Theory: Complementarity
A
- the best predictor for longer term commitment
- your partner having traits you may lack but together would make a whole
- complementary behaviours take account of each others needs
- helps relationship feel less superficial which increases attraction
21
Q
SET: Minimax Principle
A
- we try to minimise losses and maximise gains in a relationship by having more rewards than costs
- these are subjective and can change over the course of a relationship
22
Q
Social Exchange Theory
A
- Thibault & Kelly (1959)
- claims behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
23
Q
SET: 4 Stages of Relationship Development
A
1) sampling
2) bargaining
3) commitment
4) institutionalisation
24
Q
SET: Sampling Stage
A
we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our relationships (not just romantic ones) or by observing others do so
25
Q
SET: Bargaining Stage
A
this marks the beginning of a relationship when romantic partners start by exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what’s most profitable
26
Q
SET: Commitment Stage
A
as time goes on the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
27
Q
SET: Institutionalisation Stage
A
the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of costs and rewards, are firmly established
28
Q
SET: Comparison Level
A
- the amount of reward you believe you deserve
- links to self esteem
- develops out of the experience of previous relationships
- if current relationship compares favourably with past relationships we’re motivated to stay
- CL changes as we acquire more ‘data’, consider relationship worth pursuing if CL is high
- media influences CL too
29
Q
SET: Comparison Level for Alternatives
A
- provides wider context for current relationship
- we stay in current relationship only so long as we believe it’s more rewarding than alternatives
- the CLalt we adopt depends on state of current relationship
- if current isn’t going well alternatives become more attractive
30
Q
Equity Theory
A
- Walster et al (1978)
- assumes most people try to achieve fairness in relationships and feel distress if they perceive unfairness
- equitable relationships should be one where one partners profits equals their partners profits
- inequity seen as having potential to create dissatisfaction
- underbenefitting partner feels anger, sadness, resentment
- over benefitting partner feels self-pity, guilt, shames
31
Q
Equity Theory: Distribution
A
trade offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship
32
Q
Equity Theory: Dissatisfaction
A
the greater the degree of perceived unfairness the greater the sense of dissatisfaction
33
Q
Equity Theory: Realignment
A
if restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts made to realign equity
34
Q
Investment Model
A
- Rusbult (1983)
- maintenance of relationship determined by commitment
- can be strengthened by satisfaction and investment and weakened by presence of alternatives
35
Q
Investment Model: Satisfaction
A
- based on concept of CL
- satisfying relationship judged by comparing rewards and costs and seen to be profitable if has many rewards and few costs
- each partner generally satisfied if getting more out of relationship than expect based on previous experience and social norms
36
Q
Investment Model: Investment
A
- anything lost if relationship were to end
- intrinsic: any resources put directly into relationship
- extrinsic: resources that previously didn’t feature in relationship but now closely associated with it
37
Q
Investment Model: Presence of Alternatives
A
- comparison with alternatives results in romantic partners asking themselves: ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?’
- alternatives include not just relationships with other people but possibility of having no romantic relationship at all
38
Q
Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
A
- Duck (2007)
- begins when one of the partners becomes distressed with the way the relationship is conducted
- inequitable relationships are more likely to create dissatisfaction than equitable relationships
- once dissatisfaction occurs partners work through a number of stages
- these stages have a different focus and once an individual reaches the threshold they move on to the next stage of breakdown
39
Q
4 Phases of Relationship Breakdown
A
1) intra-psychic
2) dyadic
3) social
4) grave-dressing
40
Q
Phase Model: Intra-Psychic Phase
A
- personal brooding
- individual cognitive processing of weighing up the pros and cons of the relationship
- alternatives (include being alone) are evaluated
41
Q
Phase Model: Dyadic Phase
A
- discussion with partner
- confrontations between partners and a rethinking of the commitment that kept them together
- if rescue attempts fail, the next threshold is reached
42
Q
Phase Model: Social Phase
A
- issues made public
- partners seek support from others and forge pacts
- the break up takes on a momentum driven by social forces
43
Q
Phase Model: Grave-Dressing Phase
A
- saving face
- a favourable story is created for public consumption
- both partners try to maintain their positive reputation
44
Q
Hyperpersonal Model
A
- Walther 1996
- argues that online relationships can be more personal and invlove greater self disclosure than face to face ones
45
Q
Hyperpersonal Model: Boom and Bust
A
- relationships online develop quickly as self-disclosure happens earlier, is more intense and intimate
- these relationships can also end much quicker because of the high excitement levels might be there but there’s no real trust or knowledge
46
Q
Hyperpersonal Model: Selective Self-Presentation
A
- the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image than in a face to face relationship
47
Q
Hyperpersonal Model: Anonymity
A
- people don’t know your real life identity so you’re less accountable for your behaviour leading to more intimate sharing of information
48
Q
Hyperpersonal Model: Strangers on a Train Effect
A
- Rubin 1975
- when confederates disclosed intimate details of their lives to the strangers sat next to them the strangers often disclosed back
- this is because they were unlikely to see the confederate again and as the confederate didn’t know the strangers true identity or social circle the shared information was likely to remain confidential
49
Q
Reduced Cues Theory
A
- Sproull and Kiesler 1986
- online relationships lack the cues of face to face interaction so leads to less self disclosure
50
Q
Reduced Cues Theory: Deindividuation
A
- reduces sense of individual identity (e.g. facial expressions and tone of voice) as it’s all written online
51
Q
Reduced Cues Theory: Disinhibition
A
- more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication and a reluctance to self disclose
52
Q
Gate
A
- a feature or obstacle that could interfere with the development of a face ot face relationship
- e.g. physical disability, stammer, attractiveness
53
Q
The Effect of Gates on a Virtual Relationship
A
- gates can remain hidden online
- means that self disclosure becomes more frequent and deeper meaning the relationship can get off the ground in a way that is less likely to happen face to face
- absence of gating works by refocusing attention on self disclosure and away from superficial and distracting features
- allows self disclosure and intimacy to develop with communication
- then the gate may be revealed but because of self disclosure that has already taken place the gate is seen as less important, thus allowing the relationship to develop
- means people are free to create online identities that they couldn’t do as easily in real life
- social networks can empower ‘gated’ individuals to present the identities they hope to establish but are unable to in the real world
- individuals stretch the truth a little in their efforts to project a more desirable version of themselves
54
Q
Celebrity Attitudes Scale and the 3 Levels of Parasocial Relationships
A
- McCutcheon et al (2002) developed the ‘celebrity attitudes scale’ which was used in a large scale survey by Maltby et al (2006) who identified 3 levels
1) entertainment-social
2) intense-personal
3) borderline pathological
55
Q
Entertainment-Social Level of PSR
A
- celebrities viewed as fuel for social interaction like gossiping about someone in a workplace or school
- fans are attracted to their favourite celebrity and will watch, keep up with, read and learn about that celebrity for the purpose of entertainment
56
Q
Intense-Personal Level of PSR
A
- intense thoughts and feelings are felt about the celebrity
- individuals like to share these thoughts with others who feel a similar way
- this level involves a deeper level of involvement and reflects intensive and compulsive feelings and obsessive tendencies
57
Q
Bordeline Pathological Level of PSR
A
- features uncontrollable and extreme behaviours
- these might include spending or planning to spend a large sum of money on a celebrity related topic, or being willing to perform some illegal act at the celebrity’s say so
- individuals identify with the celebrity’s successes and failures but is also characterised by over-identification and uncontrollable behaviours and fantasies
58
Q
Absorption Addiction Model
A
- McCutcheon 2002
- people engage in celebrity worship to compensate for some deficiencies in their life such as difficulty forming intimate relationships, poor psychological adjustment and lack of identity
- forming parasocial relationship with a celebrity allows them to achieve the fulfilment they lack in everyday life and adds a sense of purpose and excitement
59
Q
Absorption Addiction Model: Absorption
A
- looking for satisfaction in celebrity worship makes a person focus intensively on parasocial relationships and achieving a sense of fulfilment motivates them to become even more intensely attached to the celebrity
60
Q
Absorption Addiction Model: Addiction
A
- this sense of fulfilment then becomes addictive for the person, leading them to engage in more risky behaviour such as stalking in order to get mentally and sometimes physically closer to the celebrity they worship
61
Q
Attachment Theory Explanation for PSR
A
- insecure-resistant are most likely to form a parasocial relationship
- they have unfulfilled needs not met by real-life relationships
- they are too afraid of the criticism and rejection that are a part of real life relationships
- Hazan and Shaver: insecure resistant behaviour translates into clingy and jealous behaviour in adulthood
- this makes it difficult for such people to develop committed and lasting romantic relationships
- intensive celebrity worship allows them to engage in fantasy about the perfect relationship without heartbreak and rejection
62
Q
3 Properties of Attachment in PSR
A
- Weiss 1991
1) proximity seeking
2) secure base
3) protest at disruption
63
Q
Properties of Attachment in PSR: Proximity Seeking
A
- attempt to reduce distance between themselves and attachment figure
- like to stay informed, collect trivia, rearrange schedules to see them on TV, attempt to contact them
64
Q
Properties of Attachment in PSR: Secure Base
A
- presence of attachment figure provides sense of security fro individual
- little or no chance of rejection
- create secure base from which can explore other relationships
65
Q
Properties of Attachment in PSR: Protest at Disruption
A
- prolonged distress following separation or loss of attachment figure
