Relationships AO3 Flashcards
Weakness of evolutionary explainations for partner preferences.
Research cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian women.
This is as homosexual relationships aren’t assessing genetic fitness.
This research ignores individual preferences.
However, Lawson (2004) found preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do hetrosexual men and women. Suggesting there are similarites in selection stragies, assessing qualities relevant to raining offspring.
Strength of evolutionary explainations for partner preferences (Inter-sexual selection).
Suppotive evidence for females pickness.
Clark & Hatfield (1989) showed female pickiness to be a reality. Psychology students went around campus askinh other students if they’d ‘go to bed with them tonight’. Men said yes 75% of the time compared to no females.
However, they used a field experinment, reducing internal validity and replicapility, due to lack of control over extraneous variables.
Furthermore, Buss & Schmitt argued similar strategies are adopted when seeking long term relationships.
Strength of evolutionary explainations for partner preferences (Anisogamy).
Supportive evidence for it’s predictions.
Buss (1989) surved 10,000+ adults in 33 countries finding femals placed greater value on resource-related characteristics whilst males valued reproductive capacity.
This reflects consistent sex differences.
Furthermore, this research his high population validity, so is more reliable and generalisable, increased external validity.
Weakness of self disclosure.
Cultural differences.
Tang et al (2013) concluded that US (individualist) ppts self-disclosed more sexual thoughts and feelings than ppt in China (collectivist), but there was no differences in levels of satisfaction.
However, this research is a meta-analysis which may lead to flawed results due to researcher bias.
Strength of self disclosure.
Real-world applicability.
Haas & Stafford found 57% of homosexual men and women said open and honest self disclosure was how they maintained and deepend the relationship.
This means less skilled partners can learn to use disclosure to benefit their relationship.
However, this research was dependent on self-report methods, leading to social desirability bias.
Furthermore, it is socially sensitive, making partners feel weaker than others due to communication, affecting how they view themselves, partner and relationship.
Supportive evidence for self disclosure.
Sprecher & Hendrick (2004).
Found men and women who used self disclosure were more satisfied with and commited to their romantic relationships.
Support that self discolosure should be used and recipricated for a strong and healthy relationship.
:( much of this research is correlation so cause and effect cannot be established, making it just as likely there are alternative explanations due to a third variable.
:( lacks universal validity as focused only on hetrosexual couples.
Weakness of physical attractiveness.
Research challanging matching hypothesis.
Taylor et al (2011) found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
Contradiciting the central prediction about matching attractiveness.
:) Feingold carried out a meta analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between partners, so you may be able to gain a more attractive partner.
Strength of physical attractiveness.
Supports the idea of evolutionary processes.
Cunningham et al found women who had features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, so concluded that’s what is considered physically attractive consistently across different societies.
:) Isn’t culture bias as ithas been applied across cultures with differing norms.
Strength of physical attractiveness (halo effect).
Physical attractiveness is associated with the halo effect.
Palmer & peterson found physically attractive people were ratred as more politically knowledgable and competent, even when knowing they had no particular expertise.
:) a lab experiment was used - high control, high internal reliability, allowing for standardisation.
Strength of filter theory.
Research support.
Kerckhoff & Davis found closeness was associated with similarity of attitudes but only for couples together for less tahn 18 months. For those in longer relationships complimerity of needs predicts closeness.
:( Many studies have failed to replicate these finding, this may be due to social changes over time and due to defining the depth of a relationship in terks of its length.
:( Longituidinal study leading to high ppt dropout which may affect results.
Actual vs perceived similarity.
Actual similarity may matter less.
Montinya et al conducted a meta analysis finding actual similarity affected attraction in short-term lab based interaction but not in real world relationships.
This suggests partners percieve greater similarites as they become more attracted to each other.
:) meta-analysis, is prone to researcher bias, as studies may only have been picked that fit their hypothesis.
Weakness of filter theory.
Complimentarity may not be central to all relationships.
Markey & Markey found lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied, having been involved for an average of 4.5 + years.
This suggest it is similarity of needs that is associated with long term satisfaction, opposng the theory.
:) self-report meaasures were used so respoinses may not be as accurate as clarity cannot be gained over what the question is asking, likely to house inconsitencies and be inaccurate.
Strength of social exchange theory.
Reserach support.
Kurdek found that those who were most commited also perceived the most rewards and fewer costs, viewing alternatives as relatively unattractive.
This matches predictions from SET.
:( ignores equity - suggesting a balance of rewards and costs and the perceptions of it being fair - limited explanation.
SET is correlational research.
Direction of cause and effect cannot be established.
SET claims dissatisfaction arises after a relationship stops being profitable but Argyle argued we don’t consitently monitor these. He suggested when we’re satisfied and commited we don’t notice alternatives.
This suggests costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction instead.
:) SET is correlational quick and easy to establish if there is a relationship and the strength of the relationship.
Weakness of social exchange theory.
Lack of agreement over it’s economical assumptions.
Clark & Mills argue SET doesn’t distinguish between two relationship types. They suggest communal relationships (romantic) are marked by the giving and recieving of rewards but this is monitored. If it was monitored we would likely question how genuine our partner is.
Based on unwarranted assumptions that effect exchange relationships as opposed to romantic.
