relationships AO3 Flashcards
STRENGTH SEXUAL SELECTION (supporting evidence 1)
I:sup evi for sex differences in reproductive behaviours
E:clark and hatfield- sent students to uni- asked others to go to bed with them- 75 males agreed, 0 females did
C:increases validity- men want short term
WEAKNESS OF SUP EVI FOR SEXUAL SELECTION
I: methodological issues
E: unrepresentative sample- uni culture of casual sex
C:reduces validity
STRENGTH SEXUAL SELECTION (supporting evidence 2)
I: sup evi sex differences in partner preferences
E: Buss- cross cultural study (37 cultures)- men preferred attractiveness women preferred resources and intelligence
C: increases validity- attracted to different traits
WEAKNESS OF SEXUAL SELECTION THEORY
I: lacks temporal validity
E: more same sex relationships not based on reproduction and women in jobs so don’t need resources from man
C: reduces validity- can’t explain modern relationships
STRENGTH OF ROLE OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS (Sup evi 1)
I: cross cultural evi- physical attractiveness in attraction
E: Cunningham- large eyes and small noses rated attractive by white, Hispanic and asian men
C: neotenous features universally attractive
STRENGTH OF ROLE OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS (Sup evi 2)
I: sup evi for halo effect
E: Peterson- physically attractive people rated as knowledgable
wheeler + Kim- American + Korean ps rates physically attractive people as trustworthy
C: affect on preconceived ideas of personality
STRENGTH OF ROLE OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS (Sup evi 3)
I: sup evi for role of matching hypothesis
E: Murstein - people rated photos of individuals- those in couples were rated more similarly
C: attraction based on similarity and attainability
WEAKNESS OF ROLE OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS (cont evi)
I: cont evi for matching hypothesis
E: Walter computer dance study- Participants told they were matched but were randomly allocated into pairs- Acted positively to most attractive people regardless of their own attractiveness
C: want most socially desirable partner
Strength of self disclosure (sup evi)
I: Supporting evidence for importance of self-disclosure in satisfaction
E: Sprecher and Hendrick- Strong positive correlation between disclosure and satisfaction
Laurenceau- long term couples daily diaries showed perception of self disclosure led to intimacy
C: increases validity
Weakness of supporting evidence for self-disclosure
I: methodological issues
E: causation may be other way- satisfaction causes self-disclosure
3rd variable of time spent together
C: correlation- may not be valid
Strength of self-disclosure (sup evi 2)
I: Cultural differences in self-disclosure
E:Westerners disclose more than non-western- Americans disclose more than Japanese partners and Japanese woman disclose less than Japanese men
C:Importance of self-disclosure influenced by culture
Strength of self disclosure (real life)
I: Help people in real life improve intimacy
E: Hass and Stafford – 57% gay men/women said self-disclosure deep and commitment
Less skilled partners Can benefit from learning self-disclosure
C: valuable psychological insights
strength of of filter theory (sup evi)
I: sup evi for key elements
E: kerchoff- longitudinal study on couples- questionnaire- before 18mths similarity of attitudes most important but after that complementarity of needs
C: increases validity
weakness of filter theory (findings)
I: failure to replicate findings
E: levinger- no evidence that similarity of complementarity affected relationship length
C: reduces validity- inconsistent
(changing societal values may make questionnaire less appropriate)
weakness of filter theory (cont evi)
I: cont evi
E: Anderson et al- couples become more similar over time and similarity in intellect increased over 14 yrs
C: reduces validity that complementarity is more important in long term
weakness of filter theory (validity)
I: lacks temporal validity
E: rise in online dating reduces influence of social demography as you can date someone from diff location
C: can’t explain modern relationships
strength of SET (sup evi)
I:sup evi for CL alt
E:sprecher- 101 uni couples- high CL alt meant low commitment
C: alternatives more attractive when costs are higher
weakness of SET (cause and effect)
I: problems establishing cause and effect
E: shows correlation between CL alt and satisfaction- could be that satisfaction determines CL alt
C: reduces validity
weakness of SET (assumptions)
I: researchers don’t accept assumptions of SET
E: clark and mills- not all relationships involve economic exchange- don’t keep score- more communal when romantic
C:reduces validity
strength of equity theory (sup evi)
I: sup ei from real life relationships
E: survey from 118 recently married couples- those who thought it was equitable were satisfied
C: increases validity
weakness of equity theory (cause)
I:fail to establish causality
E:inequity and dissatisfaction linked- clark- those who view relationship in terms of equity are in trouble
C:reduces validity
weakness of equity theory (differences)
I: fails to consider relationship differences
E: huseman- some less sensitive to equity- 3 types: benevolent (tolerate it)- equity sensitives (behave like theory)- entitled (won’t under benefit)
C: reduces reliability
strength of investment model of relationships (sup evi)
I: sup evi for model
E: le and agnew- meta analysis of 52 studies- satisfaction, alternatives and investment always highly correlated to commitment
C: increases validity
strength od investment model (explanation)
I: explanatory power
E: victims of abuse stay in relationship even when satisfaction is low because of high investments and low alternatives
C: increases validity- accountable for real life
weakness of investment model (causality)
I: problems establishing cause and effect
E: argues investment size determines commitment but correlational study shows committed people invest more
C: reduces validity
weakness for all economic theories (measuring concepts)
I: hard to measure concepts
E: hard to objectively define reward as psychological rewards like praise are harder to measure than things like gifts
C: reduces validity
weakness for all economic theories (cultural bias)
I: culturally biased
E: based on individualistic cultures (personal satisfaction) not collectivist cultures (societal needs)
C: reduces validity- not generalisable
weakness of ducks relationship breakdown model (incomplete)
I: original model is incomplete and oversimplified
E: suggests movement from stages is linear- new model accounts for return to stages and 5th stage of resurrection where partners get over pain and achieve personal growth for future relationships
C: revised model is more valid than original
weakness of ducks relationship breakdown model (method)
I: methodological issues
E: based on retrospective research (long after relationship ends) because its unethical to study a relationship in process of breakdown- memory may be inaccurate and subjective
C: reduces validity- not scientific
weakness of ducks relationship breakdown model (reasoning)
I: doesn’t explain why relationship breakdown occurs initially
E: focuses on what happens rather than reasons- should focus more on theories like fatal attraction as they suggest relationships breakdown because and initially attractive theme is now dissatisfying e.g rebellion as immaturity
C: reduces validity- incomplete
strength of ducks relationship breakdown model (practical app)
I: positive real life applications
E: helps to identify stages and intervene before breakdown e.g. someone in intrapsychic stage can repress concerns and focus on positives
C: improves lives in real world
Strength of Hyper personal model
I: Supporting evidence
E: Whitty and joinson – Questions asked online more direct and personal with small talk used more in ftf
C: Increases validity that online self-disclosure promotes intimacy
Strength of absence of gating
I:Supporting evidence
E: Baker and Oswald – surveyed 207 students about shyness – high shyness = high perception of friendship quality online and opposite for low shyness
C: increases validity that VR Overcomes obstacles like shyness
Weakness of reduced cues theory
I: Arguments against theory
E: Walther - Different cues online such as emojis and acronyms like LOL and non verbal cues present on apps like FaceTime
C: reduces validity
Weakness of CMC
I:Not a single concept
E:Self-disclosure may be reduced using dating apps because there is a possibility of meeting but will not be on games as you’re likely not to meet
C:Reduces the validity of both theories
Strength of absorption addiction
I:Supporting research
E:Maltby -entertainment social level linked to extroversion, interpersonal to introversion and borderline pathological level linked to psychoticism
C:Increases validity that extreme PSR levels are linked to poor mental health
Weakness of absorption addiction
I:Methodological issues with supporting evidence
E: correlational- Issues with cause and affect as it may be psychotic traits caused by PSR or a third variable such as upbringing
C:Reduced validity that para social relationships are caused by psychotic traits
Strength of attachment theory
I:Supporting evidence
E: Cohen- Sample of 381 adults – questionnaire – questions about relationships with TV characters and attachment style – more extreme reactions linked to insecure resistant attachment
C:Increases validity that PSR is more common among insecure resistant individuals
Weakness of attachment theory
I:Not all research supports predictions
E: McCutcheon – measured attachment types and related attitudes – Found insecure attachment made people no more likely to have PSRs then secure attachments
C:Reduces the validity
