Relationships: AO3 Flashcards
Evolutionary AO3
+ research support: Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students across uni campus, approached other students with q “I’ve noticed you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”, not single female student agreed to request whereas 75% of males did immediately, supports idea that men value quantity of relationships over quality, less consequences for men whereas women could get pregnant.
+ research evidence: content analysis on what people offered and sought in ‘Lonely Heart’ columns, found women tended to offer features of physical attractiveness and youth and sought resourcefulness, men offered resources and sought youthfulness and physical features
+ can’t explain preferences of gay men and lesbian women: Lawson et al (2014) looked at ‘personal ads’ placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women, found preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women, evolutionary explanations rooted in idea that partner preferences are driven by reproductive success; however homosexual relationships can’t be explained by this framework.
- overlook social and cultural influences: partner preferences over past century influenced by rapidly changing social norms of behaviour, develop much faster than evolutionary time scales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors (eg increase of contraception), women’s greater role in workplace means no longer dependent on men to provide, Bereczkei et al (1997) argue that this social change has consequences for women’s mate
Self Disclosure AO3
+ research support: Sprecher and Hendrick (2014) studied heterosexual dating couples, found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure for both partners, men and women who used self disclosure (and believed partners did the same) more satisfied with and committed to relationship, later study Sprecher et al (2013) showed relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose (reciprocate), validity of theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships, correlational
+ research helps those who want to improve communication: romantic partners sometimes use self disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy and strengthen bond, Haas and Stafford (1998) found 57% of homosexual men and women said open and honest self disclosure was main way they maintained and deepened relationships.
- cross cultural differences: Tang et al (2013) reviewed research into sexual self disclosure, concluded men and women in the US disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China, lower levels of disclosure in China, levels of satisfaction were no different, limited explanation of romantic relationships because based on findings from individualist cultures which aren’t generalisable to other cultures, displaying culture bias.
Physical Attractiveness and Matching Hypothesis AO3
+ pa associated with halo effect: Palmer and Peterson (2012) found phsyically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent, halo effect so powerful that persisted when ps knew that ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise, dangers for democracy if politicians judged as suitable because considered physicall attractive
+ role of pa support for evolutionary: Cunningham et al (1995) found women who had large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high eyebrows rated as high attractive by white, hispanic and asian men, concluded what considered physically attractive cosistent across societies, attractive features sign of genetic fitness, perpetuated similarly in all cultures
- mh isn’t supported by real world research into dating: Taylo et al (2011) studied activity logs of popular online dating site and measured actual date choices, found online daters sought meetings with potential partners more physically attractive than them, contradicts central prediction
Filter Theory AO3
+ research support for stages: Festinger et al (1950) tracked relationship formation between people living in apartment building, found those who lived closer in distance more likely to form relationship, Winch (1958) found evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners typical of earlier stages of relationship, support for social demography and similarity in attitudes
+ useful in real world situations: Duck (1973) suggests allows predictions about future interactions and avoid investing in relationships that won’t work, each person conducts series of explorations diclosing info and making enquiries about other person, based on these partners decide to continue or make decision won’t work and end before becoming too deeply involved
- later studies failed to replicate findings of Kerckhoff and Davis: Levinger at al (1970) had 330 couples ‘steadily attached’ go through same procedures, no evidence either similarity of attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influenced progress toward permanence, no significant relationship between length and influence of these variables, suggests questionnaires used in original study not appropriate given changes in social values and courtship patterns
- support for ‘similarity-attraction’: prediction is most satisfying relationships partners complementary, Markey and Markey (2013) found lesbian couples of equal dominance most satisfied, sample of couples romantically involved for mean time of more than 4.5 years
Social Exchange Theory AO3
- vague and hard to quantify concepts: rewards and costs have been defined superficially in research in order to measure them, real world psychological rewards and costs are subjective and harder to define, concept of comparison levels especially problematic, unclear what values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens relationship, subjective nature of rewards, costs and comparison levels makes them hard to measure, varies between individuals, CL and CLalt lack clear thresholds, difficult to determine when dissatisfaction or alternatives impact relationship, challenging to test and apply consistently
+ research support: Kurdek (1995) asked gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables, found partners who most committed also perceived most rewards and costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive, first study to demonstrate main SET concepts that predict commitment are independent of each other, match predictions from SET, strongly confirming validity of theory in gay and lesbian couples - economic metaphor: Clark and Mills (2011) argue two types of relationships, exchange relationship which do involve social exchanges and communal relationships which are marked by giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score, if monitoring reciprocal activities in relationships doubt commitment, collectivist cultures more evidence of communal relationships than exchange as less influence of western capitalist ideas which economic metaphor based on
- don’t truly keep eye on alternatives: Miller (1997) found people who rated themselves as being in highly committed relationship spent less time looking at images of attractive people, question whether truly constantly weighing current relationship against more attractive alternatives, don’t start counting rewards and costs or considering alternatives until we are dissatisfied (Argyle, 1987), artificial research may lack internal validity asking people about commitment level in relationships that may produce socially desirable response which may not accurately reflect actual relationship
Equity Theory AO3
+ real world studies: Utne et al (1984) conducted survey of 118 recently married couples, two self report scales to measure equity, ps aged between 16 and 45 together over 2 years before marriage, found couples who viewed relationship equitable reported higher satisfaction than who felt over benefitting or underbenefitting, fairness strongly linked to relationship satisfaction
- doesn’t play significant role: Berg and McQuinn (1986) found equity didn’t increase over time, relationships that ended and those that continued didn’t suffer in terms of equity, wasn’t determining factor, other variables found more significant, fairness and balance aren’t crucial for long term satisfaction and stability as claims
- cross cultural differences: Aumer-Ryan et al (2007) found cultural differences in how equity relates to relationship satisfaction, individualist couples reported highest satisfaction when equitable, collectivist partners most satisfied when overbenefitting, pattern was observed in both men and women, ruling out gender as confounding variable, satisfaction isn’t solely dependent on equity, shaped by cultural norms, imbalance may be more accepted or even preferred
- individual differences: Huseman et al (1987) suggested people differ in how much they value equity, benevolents willing to contribute more than receive, without feeling dissatisfied, entitled believe deserve to overbenefit and accept without distress or guilt, don’t fit assumption that all partners seek balance, existence of benevolents and entitled suggests satisfaction isn’t dependent on fairness
Investment Model AO3
+ meta analysis: Le and Agnew (2003) reviewed 52 studies, involving approximately 11,000 participants from five different countries, findings showed satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment size predicted relationship commitment, relationships with higher commitment more stable and lasted longer, applied across genders, cultures, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples, key factors universal and not limited to specific groups, consistency strengthens the model’s credibility.
+ explains abusive relationships: Rusbult and Martz (1995) examined domestically abused women residing in shelter, discovered most likely to return to their abusive partners have made significant investments in and perceived few attractive alternatives, commitment was driven by these other factors, satisfaction alone not sufficient to explain why people remain, commitment and investment play crucial roles, even in adverse situations
- correlational: predicts investment positively correlated with commitment, no evidence of causation, don’t allow to conclude any factors cause commitment, may be third variable that causes commitment, bidirectional ambiguity, more committed feel, more invest, direction of causality reverse of model.
- oversimplified: Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) argue investment more than just resources already put in, early stages couples may have made few tangible investments, expanded Rusbult’s model by including future investment—commit because want to see future plans together succeed, commitment not just about past investments also about anticipated future rewards, failure to consider this makes model less comprehensive.
