Relationships studies Flashcards
Feingold - matching hypothesis
meta analysis of studies where the rating of couples were correlated, +0.39 correlation (moderate, moderate strong)
Feingold - attractiveness
correlation was stronger for long term couples than short term couples
Silverman
covert operation of couples in real dating contexts, more similar couples appear happier
Towhey
those who scored high on MACHO scale (measures tradition views) more influenced by physical attractiveness in potential partners
Cunningham’s
white, Hispanic and Asian males prefer neotenous features
evidence for importance of symmetry
,many studies, using different methods
wheeler and kim
halo effect- American and Korean students judged attractive people to be trustworthy, mature and friendly
Sprecher and Hendrick
+0.3 correlation between self disclosure and satisfaction - moderate
Collins and Miller
meta analysis- people who disclose at intimate levels are more liked than those who disclose at lower levels
correlational and experimental studies for disclosure and liking
correlational - +0.39 (moderate)
experimental- +0.27 (small effect)
Tang
study in china - self disclosure leads to liking but disclosure of sexual feelings not appropriate (not universal?)
Laurenceau
longitudinal study of content analysis from diaries of couples - higher levels of intimacy linked with self disclosure
self disclosure vs initial attraction
same correlation of +0.39 for attractiveness of couples and liking and self disclosure - similar influence
3 methods to identify importance of similarity in relationships
- surveys of couples- questions on 3 filters conducted longitudinally
- experiments, phantom stranger - exposed to description of a stranger who is either similar to them or not
- online dating studies - analysis of contacts people make/ how similar they are
Mendelsohn
study of online dating, % of contacts made by white males
80% white
3% black
17% other
Gruber - Baldini
longitudinal study - those similar in education level at the start more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship
phantom stranger studies
people like those who resemble similar attitudes more than those who don’t
general trend in evidence for complementarity in filter theory
couples tend to be more emotionally similar than different exception - females more attracted to males who are dominant but not vice versa
Rusbult
increase in rewards led to an increase in satisfaction and changes in costs didn’t significantly affect satisfaction.
le and agnew (SET)
meta analysis, percentage of variance in commitment explained by:
satisfaction - 30%
comparison to alternatives - 15%
Clarke and mill
common couples happier than exchange couples - close tracking of rewards and costs led to an unhappy relationship
Walster and utne
those in equitable relationships were the most content, those who under-benefitted felt most anger and lower contentment and those who significantly over benefitted felt most guilt and lower contentment
walster-students utne-married couples
aumer-ryan
cross cultural study where equitable couples were the mot satisfied in individualist cultures but not collective cultures
Berg and McQuinn
longitudinal study of dating couples
- equity did not increase over time in couples in satisfying relationships
- equity did not predict if couples stayed together (self disclosure did)
addition to Le and Agnew - investment
% contribution of 4 variables to commitment:
30% satisfaction
15% comparison to alternatives
15% investment
40% other factors
(+0.47 correlation moderate correlation between commitment and whether pps stay together)
Rusbult and Martz
in abusive relationships - both comparison for alternatives and investment predicted when victims returned to abusive partners
evidence for Duck’s phase model
retrospective surveys - results rely on memory which may be faulty or biased based on social desirability. questions may have shaped story to fit the story
Buss
cross-cultural questionnaire from 37 cultures
men look for looks and youth - fertility
women look for income and ambition - care for offspring
Waynforth and Dunbar
content analysis of lonely hearts ads
men sought for looks and provided resources
women sought resources and provided looks
Clark and Hatfield
quasi experiment:
75% of men agreed to sex, more chance for reproduction- less choosy
0% of women agreed, risk of pregnancy with partner with poor genes/ weak investment
Singh
cross cultural study of waist-hip ratio
universal presence for women with WHR of 0.7
Joinson
content analysis of levels of self disclosure:
anonymous CMC > CMC via video link = FtF discussion
Ruppel
meta analysis of studies of self disclosure:
greater self disclosure FtF rather than CMC 0.2 correlation (contradicts hyperpersonal model)
McKenna and Bargh
lonely and anxious people able to express true selves more in CMC 70% of relationships formed online survived more than 2 years
3 studies of characteristics displayed by those with PRs
Maltby(2005)- poor body image
Maltby et al- anxiety and depression
McCutcheon(2014)- impulsiveness
studies that do/ do not support attachment theory
Cole and Leets - yes
Cohen - yes
McCutcheon - no
(all are correlation problems identifying cause and effect)
