Relationships - Paper 3 Flashcards
What is sexual selection
Any genes which are advantageous for survival and nature selected. Promote successful reproduction
What is anisogamy
The difference between male and female sex cells. Male (sperm) plentiful whereas female are expensive.
Fertile females are rarer resource
Inter-sexual selection
Selection of mates between sexes
Female - quality over quantity - investment time, commitment - provide resources
Impact - attributes passed on - e.g. height, runaway process constantly taller males
Intra sexual selection
Selection of mates within sexes
Male strategy - quantity over quality - traits contribute to victory
Physical consequences - bigger win competition
Behavioural consequences - aggressiveness
Evaluate evolutionary explanations for parter preferences
+ research support inter - Clark et al - students, no females agreed to have sex but 75% males agreed
- counter - Buss et al - oversimplistic one strategy adaptive for one and one another - both seek long term
+ Buss et al intra - 10,000 adults, important preferences, females resources, males physical attractiveness
- social and cultural influences - women work so don’t need resources
What is self - disclosure
Revealing intimate information to another person.
Most people afraid to disclose too much too soon
Important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction
What is social penetration theory (SPT)
Altman and Taylor gradual process of revealing inner self
Gain trust
Reciprocate and reveal personal information
SPT - Penetration
Leads to development - increasingly disclose more information as penetrate
Depenetration how dissatisfied partners self disclose less as they disengage
SPT - Breadth
Narrow to begin with
Too much info is revealed may be off-putting and one partner may quit the relationship
SPT - depth
Develops more layers are gradually revealed
Reveal more intimate info including painful memories
Reciprocity of self disclosure
Shaver et al - received sensitively by other partner. Further self disclosure
Evaluation of self disclosure
+ research support - Sprecher et al - strong correlations between satisfaction and self disclosure - more committed
- correlation not causation - could be more time or satisfied disclose
- culture bias - Tang et al - US more than China - no satisfaction difference - not generalisable
Explaining the importance of attractiveness symmetry
Shackelford et al - symmetrical face more attractive - genetic fitness can’t be faked - evolutionary explanation
Baby face as attractive
Neotenous feature thought to trigger protective and caring instincts, formation of attachment in infancy
Evolutionary - naturally selected
Halo effect describes how physical is generalised
Preconceived ideas about the attributes of physical attractive people. All other attributes are positive
Dion et al physically attractive people are consistently rates as kind, strong and successful compared to unattractiveness
Walster et al - matching hypothesis
Choose partners who match us in attractiveness
Walster et al - matching hypothesis procedure
Computer dance - students rated on physical attractiveness by observers who completed questionnaires
Told data used to pair partners, but in fact randomly paired
Walster et al - matching hypothesis - findings
Physically attractive partners liked the most and more likely asked on a date
Berscheid et al replicated and chose partner similar attractiveness
Avoid rejection by physically attractive
Evaluation of physical attractiveness
+ research support halo - Palmer et al - attractive rated more politically knowledgable and competent - dangers for democracy.
- research doesn’t support matching hypothesis - Taylor et al - online dating activity logs - people sought dates were more physically attractive than themselves
+ counter - Feingold’s meta analysis - correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
What is filter theory
Fields of available and field of desirable
Kerckhoff and Davis
The first filter - social demography
Factors that influence chances of meeting
Geographical location and social class
Homogamy - partner similar to you
The 2nd filter - similarity in attitudes
Sharing belief and values - agreeing
Law of attraction - Byrne mutual attraction
The 3rd filter - complementarity
Partner meet other needs - complement
Evaluation of filter theory
+ Support from Kerckhoff and Davis - dating couples questionnaire, closeness linked to similarity of values, complementarity more important in long lasting
- counter - not replicated - social changes but partner more than 18 months must be committed, lack validity
- complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction - lesbian Nero satisfied when both dominant
What is social exchange theory
It assumes that relationships are guided by the minimax principle.
Thibault and Kelley - economics - satisfaction in terms of profit
Profitable continue unprofitable fail
What is the nature of costs and rewards
Cost include time or stress
Rewards include sex, praise or companionship
Opportunity cost - investment as cost elsewhere
The comparison level - SET
Comparison level measure profit - reward level we believe we deserve
Comparison level for alternatives - SET
Consider wether er might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in different
Duck suggests it depends on current relationship
The four stages of relationships - SET
- Sampling stage involves exploring rewards and costs by experimenting
- Bargaining stage start where negotiate around costs and rewards
- Commitment stage relationships become more stable
- Institutionalisation stage partners become settled - norms established
Evaluation of social exchange theory
- concepts are vague - rewards and costs are subjective and hard to define - comparison levels problematic
+ research support - Kurdeck - interview homo and hetro - committed had most rewards and fewer costs - concepts independent of each other - validity
- counter - ignore role of equity - not balance of rewards and costs but partners perception that this is fair - limited
What is equity theory
Most people have a need for equity - SET suggest partners aim to maximise rewards and minimise costs.
Walster eta l equity is more important where both partners level of profit should be the same
Underbenefitting and overbenefitting
Lead to dissatisfaction
Under least satisfied and feelings evident in anger and resentment
Over less dissatisfied but is still likely feel discomfort or shame
Equity is about fairness of the ratios
It’s not the size or amount of the reward and cost that matters but ratio
What are the consequences of inequity
Impacts negatively - positive correlation between
Changes happen overtime - start contribute more
How to deal with inequity
Underbenefitting partner - more equitable if salvageable
Change cognitive rather than behavioural - revise their perceptions
What was perceived as cost can be accepted as norm
Evaluation of equity theory
+ research support - Utne et al - survey recently married - more than 2 years before marrying - equitable more satisfied
- counter - Berg et al - equity not distinguish between relationships which ended than continued - other more important.
- culture bound - individualist more satisfied when equitable - collectivist more when overbenefitting
Rusbult’s model - the investment model
An extension of SET - A satisfying relationship where getting more out of relationship than expected.
Commitment - Rusbult’s model
3 factors
- Satisfaction - extent the rewards as felt
- Comparison with alternatives - judgement about wether a relationship with different partner would increase rewards or costs
- Investment - resources associated which would be lost if ended
Intrinsic and extrinsic investment - Rusbult’s
Intrinsic - resource directly into the relationship
Extrinsic - investments that previously didn’t feature in the relationship
Commitment determined by (Rusbult’s)
Satisfaction + alternatives + investment
High satisfaction, alternatives less attractive, size of investment increasing
Satisfaction v commitment - Rusbult’s
Commitment main factor causes to stay in romantic relationship, satisfaction contributes to commitment
Relationship maintenance mechanisms - Rusbult’s
- promoting their relationship
- putting their partners interest first
- forgiving them for any serious transgression
Evaluation of Rusbult’s model
+ research support - meta analysis - satisfaction, CLalt, and investment predicted commitment - stability and longevity - across cultures and homosexual - universally important
+ why people stay in abusive relationship - fewer alternatives and greater investment - go back - satisfaction on own
- oversimplifies investment - more to invest than just resources - future plans motivate to commit - limited
Ducks phase model?
Ending of relationship is not a one off event - process 4 distinct phases
Each phase has a threshold
The 4 phases of Duck’s model
Intra-psychic phase
Dyadic phase
Social phase
Grave dressing phase
What is the intra-psychic phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I can’t stand you’ - something has to change
Dissatisfied
Keep to themselves but share with trusted friend - weighing up pros and cons
Dyadic phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I would be justified in withdrawing’
Partner concludes justified ending - discuss partner - equity, commitment
Ironically self disclosure more frequent as feel reveal true feelings
Social phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘I mean it’
Support from joint friends
Friends choose a side or go between
News public, place of no return
Grave dressing phase - Ducks
Threshold - ‘it’s now inevitable’
Prepare for wider consumption
Ensure that the storyteller judged favourably
Final threshold - new life
Evaluation of Ducks phase model
+ application real world - some repair might be more effective at one stage - communication dyadic - supportive insight
- model incomplete - resurrection - apply what previously learned - complexity of breakdown and dynamic nature
- early phases less well explained - report not be accurate - first longer ago so distorted
Virtual relationships - self disclosure
Self disclosure different
Reduced cues theory - less effective lack nonverbal cues - deindividuation - blunt and aggressive
Hyper personal model - quicker in virtual - sender control - receives feedback reinforce self presentation
Anonymity important
Effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships
Gate = obstacles in face to face
Absence causes true self but untrue identities
Evaluation of virtual relationships and social media
+ support for absence of gating in virtual - McKenna et al - shy and socially anxious - 71% online mroe than 2 years (49% offline)
- lack support for reduced cues - not absent but different - intimate as take time - acronyms, emoticons and emojis effective substitute
- lack research for hyper personal model - Ruppel et al meta analysis - compared frequency, breadth and depth self disclosure - experimental no sig diff
What are the levels of parasocial relationships
The celebrity attitude scale - Maltby et al
- Entertainment social - lowest
- Intense personal - personally involved
- Borderline pathological - fantasies uncontrollable and behaviour extreme
The absorption addiction model - parasocial
McCutcheon - make up personal deficiencies
Escape mundane lives
Intense personal from stressful event
Absorption - fulfilment in celebrity worship
Addiction - increase dose of involvement to gain satisfaction
Attachment theory explanation of parasocial
Early attachment problems - Bowlby - early difficulties - preference parasocial
Insecure attachment - resistant = unfulfilled needs met and no threat of rejection avoidant = avoid pain of rejection
Evaluation os parasocial relationships
- causation v correlation - studies association - valuable for insight links but caution
+ attachment theory applied universally - all cultures
+ research absorption addiction - Maltby et al - female poor body image - eating disorder - correlation
+ levels approach research - higher levels have high anxiety in intimate
