Y2 Chapter 5 Relationships Flashcards
1
Q
Outline what’s meant by anisogamy and how it relates to sexual selection
A
- Differences between male and female sex cells
- Male - common, no energy expense, small; female is the opposite
- These differences give rise to different mating strategies
2
Q
Outline preferred mating strategies for males and females and the resulting partner preferences
A
- Males
- Intra sexual selection (mate competition)
- compete with other males for access to females
- Quantity over quality - males to most interested in young, fertile females- Females
- Inter-sexual (mate choice)
- Women invest more - choosey - choose a male based on a given trait which indicates genetic fit-ness
- Will choose males who can provided resources, protection ect
- Females
3
Q
Outline what is meant by “the runaway process” and “the sexy sons hypothesis”
A
- Women choose a mate based on a given trait that indicates genetic fitness
- This trait will then be passed on to offspring until over generations this trait will become more common
- Females choose the fittest male, and will then be produced the fittest offspring
- The offspring will then mate with the fittest over the opposite sex
4
Q
Outline research support for inter-sexual selection
A
- Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield (1989) - Showed female choosiness
- Students were approached on campus and asked if they wanted to have sex
- No female said yes while 75% of males said yes
- Supports sexaul selction as it shows that women are choosier than men
5
Q
Outline two evaluation points that supports sexual selection.
A
- Waynforth & Dunbar
- Studied lonely hearts adverts
- Women advertised physical attractiveness and indicators of youth
- Men offered resources
- Supports the theory as it shows women deem resources important and men look for youth and fertility- Buss
- Surveyed over 33 and 10,000 adults
- Questioned on attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important for partner preference
- Women place greater relevance on resources while males valued reproductive capacity
- This shows the universality of the theory
- Buss
6
Q
Outline a weakness of sexual selection
A
- Doesn’t take into account for social and cultural differences
- Social norms of sexual behaviour change quicker than evolutionary time scales and come about due to cultural changes
- Women in the workplace do not rely on men for resources (Bereczkei)
- Mate preferences may be a result of evolution and cultural influences
7
Q
Briefly explain what is meant by self-disclosure and the role it play in attraction
A
- The process of slowly revealing more information about yourself to your partner
- These self-disclosures strengthen bonds between partners
8
Q
Self-disclosure is an important part of social-penetration theory. Describe the theory
A
- Altman & Taylor (1973)
- The gradual process of revealing your inner self to another
- In a romantic relationship it involves the reciprocal exchange of information
- When we’re revealing sensitive information about yourself displays trust
- Having trust reciprocated allows for the advance of the relagtionship
- Revealing more and more sensitive information allows them to “penetrate” further into each others lives
- This will result in a greater understanding of each other and an increased attraction
9
Q
Explain what is meant by the length and breadth of self-disclosure
A
- These are both important elements of self-disclosure
- As they increase partners become more committed to each other- We disclose a lot at first
- Superficial, low risk information
- Breadth is narrow at first
- A lot of topics are of limit and we don’t want to scare people off
- As the relationship develops, self-disclosure deepens, encompassing a greater range of topics, culminating in the revealing of intimate high-risk information
- We disclose a lot at first
10
Q
Why is reciprocity important in self-disclosure?
A
- There needs to be a balance of self-disclosure between partners
- This increases feelings of intimacy
- Once you’ve disclosed something hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding (empathy, equally intimate, etc)
11
Q
Outline a weaknesses of the matching hypothesis
A
- Taylor et al (2011)
- Monitored activity on dating sites and found people tended to go for people more attractive than themselves
- This finding challenges the predictions of the matching hypothesis
12
Q
Outline a weakness of physical attractiveness research
A
- Individual differences
- Emphasis on physical attractiveness differs
- Towhey (1979)
- Created the MACHO scale
- Higher scores on this scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness
- Show physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors
- This challenges the importance of physical attractiveness
13
Q
Outline some strengths of physical attractiveness
A
- Cunningham et al (1995)
- The neotenous features have been rated attractive by males from many ethnic backgrounds- Wheeler and Kim (1997)
- Found the halo effect to be just as strong in individualist cultures as collectivist
- Evolutionary factors in physical attractiveness
- Palmer and Peterson (2012)
- Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent
- Has obvious implication
- This effect has been found to be prevalent in many areas
- Wheeler and Kim (1997)
14
Q
Outline some key terms in filter theory
A
- Field of availables
- The entire set of available partners that we could realistically form a relationship with- Field of desireables
- From the field of availables, those who are attractive to us
- Law of attraction
- The idea that we find similarity of attitudes attractive
- Complementarity
- Similarity becomes less important as a relationship develops, and is replaced by the need for your partner to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own.
- Homogamy
- The idea that you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar to you
- Field of desireables
15
Q
Outline filter theory
A
- We narrow down our list of available partners by putting people through a set of filters
- Social demography
- A wide range of factors that increase the chance of people meeting (education, class, ethnic group, religion)
- Although we meet people from far away our most meaningful interactions are usually with people nearby
- Accessibility is key - requires less effort
- Anyone who is too different will be discounted, this leads to homogamy
- Similar attitudes
- Sharing important belief and attitudes
- Similarity in attitudes is important especially within the first 18 months
- Byrne (1997) - law of attraction
- Complimentarity
- The ability to meet each others needs - Have trits the other lacks
- The need for complementarity is more important in long term relationships
- Opposites attract in later stages of a relationship
- Also gives partners the feeling of forming a whole
- Social demography
16
Q
Outline a strength of filter theory
A
- Winch (1958)
- Found that similarity of personality, interests and attitudes between partners is typical in the first year
- Between happily married couples of 7 years complementarity was more important than similarity
17
Q
Outline the weaknesses of filter theory
A
- Filter theory assumes that attraction is based of similarity in various ways
- Cohabiting partners became more similar in attitudes and emotional responses over time
- This suggests that filter theory may have the direction of causality the wrong way around- Many relationships now start online
- It is suggested that since a relationship starts online filter theory doesn’t work in the same way e.g. proximity is now less important
- The theory may no longer be valid
- Lack of replication
- Levinger (1974)
- Could be down to social changes and difficulty defining the depth of a relationship
- Originally it was assumed that 18 months was the cut of point between a long and a short relationship
- This may no longer be the case in all cultures today
- Brings into question the generalisability of the theory
- Many relationships now start online
18
Q
Social exchange theory assumes that relationships are guided by the minimax principle - explain this
A
- Thibaut and Kelley (1959) - Relationships are and exchange of goods
- Satisfaction is judged in terms of profit and cost
- Partners are driven to maximise the profit whilst minimising costs
- Profitable relationships will succeed whilst unprofitable ones will not
19
Q
What does social exchange theory mean by comparison level?
A
- It is a judgement of he reward level we expect in a relationship, determined by past relationship experiences and social norms
- Generally we seek a relationship with a high CL (people with low self-esteem will seek a relationship with a low CL)
20
Q
What are the 4 stages of a relationship according to social exchange theory?
A
- Sampling - exploring rewards and cost through experimentation and observation
- Bargaining - start of relationship, where rewards an cost are negotiated
- Commitment - relationship becomes more stable and the cost and rewards increase
- Institutionalisation - partners are settle as the norms of a relationship are established
21
Q
Outline the limitations of social exchange theory
A
- Clark and Mills (2011)
- Exchange relationships may be based on profit and loss but communal relationships are focused on giving and receiving rewards, without thinking about profit
- At the start of a relationship tallying of exchanges may be seen as disrepectful
- SET might not be a suitable explanation for all types of relationships- Direction of causality in SET
- Assumed that dissatisfaction occurs when the cost outweigh the rewards or when the alternatives seem more attractive
- Miller (1997) found that people who said they were in a committed relationship spent less time looking at attractive people
- Spending less time looking at attractive people was a good indicator of the relationship continuing
- It could be that we do not consider the profit in a relationship until we become dissatisfied
- SET deals with things that are hard to quantify
- Studies tend to operationalise rewards specifically e.g. money
- However, in reality it is much hard to quantify
- They are subjective
- We also don’t know what the values for CL and CLalt have to be before dissatisfaction occurs
- The inability to accurately define key concepts of SET make it difficult to produce valid research support
- Direction of causality in SET
22
Q
Outline the role of equity in relationships
A
- Most people have a need for equity in a relationship
- Walster et al argues that equity is more important than a balance between cost and benifits
- Both over and under benefiting can lead to dissatisfaction. Under-benefiting can lead to anger and resentment while over-benefiting can lead to shame and discomfort
- Equity is all about the ratio of rewards and cost and not the amount of each.
23
Q
Outline a strength a of equity theory
A
- Research support
- Utne et al. Newly weds who considered their relationship to have equity were more satisfied than those who over or under benefited
- Appears that profit is not the key issue in judging a relationship
- This supports predictions and gives validity to the theory- Cross cultural application
- Aumer-Ryan et al. In collectivist cultures people were most satisfied when over or under benefiting
- Cross cultural application
24
Q
Outline the limitations of equity theory
A
- Lack of cross cultural application
- Aumer-Ryan et al. In individualist cultures people were most satisfied when there was equity but in collectivist cultures people were most satisfied when over or under benefiting.
- The assumption that equity would apply in all cultures was not supported
- This is a limitation of the theory as it means that it isn’t applicable to all romantic relationships- Individual differences
- Huseman et al. Some people are more sensitive to inequity than others
- Some partners are happy to contribute more than they get
- Others are happy to overbenefit and don’t feel guilty for it
- This is a weakness of the theory because it hasn’t accounted for individual differences
- Failure to support predictions
- Berg and McQuinn found equity doesn’t increase over time
- The theory also fails to distinguish between successful and failed relationships
- The theory should be able to predict breakups
- Other factors seem to be more important (e.g. self-disclosure)
- Individual differences
25
What are the consequence of inequity?
- Sense of inequity impacts negativity on relationships
- The greater the perceived inequity the greater the dissatisfaction
- Changes in equity occur during a relationship
- At the start of a relationship it may feel perfectly natural to contribute more than you receive
- If this continues as the relationship develops it may lead to dissatisfaction
- Inequity has to be addressed at times
- The underbenefitting will work hard to make the relationship more equitable if they believe it is possible to do so
- The changes could be cognitive rather than behavioural. The partner may change their perceived costs and benefits
- The revision of norms can also explain how abusive relationships can occur
26
In relation to Rusbult's investment model of romantic relationships, explain what's meant by satisfaction and commitment
- Satisfaction is the extent to which a partner feels the rewards of a relationship exceeds the cost. It is one of three factors that affects commitment
- Commitment is a romantic partners intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting the belief that the relationship has long term validity. Commitment is an important aspect of the model, as it can explain why unhappy people stay in relationships.
27
Describe Rusbult's investment theory of romantic relationships
- According to Rusbult (2011) a partner's commitment to a relationship is based on three factors - Satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment size
- Satisfaction is based on the amount of rewards (sex, companionship, laughs ect) and costs (stress, conflict ect)
- If the rewards are high and the partners receive more than they expected to based on previous relationships then satisfaction is high
- The quality of alternatives refers to partners asking themselves if their needs could be better met somewhere else
- If this should be the case then commitment levels will drop
- Investment size refers to the importance of the resources associated with the relationship. These can be intrinsic (directly put into the relationship by a partner e.g. effort, money, time etc) or extrinsic (ones that come as a direct result of the relationship e.g. children, memorise etc)
- If the rewards are high and the partners receive more than expected to based on previous relationships, then satisfaction will be high
- The quality of alternatives refers to the partners asking themselves whether or not their needs to be better met elsewhere
- Should this be the case, commitment levels will drop
- The investment size refers to the importance of the resources associated with the relationship. These can be intrinsic (directly put into the relationship by a partner e.g. effort and money) or extrinsic (ones that came as a direct result of the relationship)
28
Outline some strengths of Rusbult's investment model
- Practical value
- Can be used to explain why people stay in abusive relationships
- In a study of 'battered women', Rusbult and Martz found that those most likely to return to an abusive partner reported a high amount of investment and lack of alternatives
- Supports the idea that people don't have to be satisfied to remain in a relationship
- Research support
- Le and Agnew conducted meta-analysis
- 52 studies across a long period of time and many countries
- Satisfaction, quality of alternatives and investment all predicted relationship commitment, which in turn predicted relationship stability
- It was found that these factors were all equally important in men, women, heterosexual and homosexual relationships
29
Outline some weaknesses of Rusbult's investment theory
- Goodfriend and Agnew
- More than investment that resources already put in
- Early into a relationship investment is low
- However, you invest in future plans, which motivate people to commit
- This means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to understand the full complexity
- Correlational research
- A strong correlation has been established
- We cannot assume that one causes the other
- We cannot conclude which factors, if any, might cause commitment
30
Outline Duck's phase model of relationship breakdown
- Duck's model suggests that people pass through 4 different phase when going through a breakdown
- Intrapsychic phase
- This stage is where there is a realisation that there is an issue with the relationship and issues are thought ove
- Pros and cons are weighed up
- Dyadic phase
- Partners air their grievances, often leads to arguments, at this stage the relationship can still be salvaged
- Social phase
- The breakup is made public. Factions are formed and common friends are forced to choose a side. Gossip is traded in and between factions.
- Some friends will try to repair the breakup whilst others will hasten the breakup
- Grave-dressing phase
- This stage focus on the aftermath of the breakup
- Partners will try to save face, usually at the expense of the other, and spin a favorable story portraying themselves in a positive light
- People will try and create a story they can live with, move on and learn from the mistakes made
31
Evaluate Duck's phase model
- Strengths
- Real-life application
- Not only identifies the stages but also suggest ways of repairing the relationship at each
- Duck (1994) - suggests that during the intrapsychic stage try and focus brooding on the positive aspects of your partner
- The model can be used in relationship counseling
- Weakness
- Incomplete model
- Original model is over simplified
- Duck and Rollie - added a fifth stage after grave-dressing, the resurrection stage, in which ex's focus on future relationships using experience gained from past ones
- They also make it clear that moving on from one stage to the next is not inevitable and partners can move back stages
- These address the weaknesses of the original model, that it's incomplete as it fails to account for the dynamic nature of breakups
- Methodological issues
- The theory relies on retrospective data. This means that the data collected could be inaccurate or unreliable
- Early stages of the breakup tend to be distorted or ignored entirly
- It's almost impossible to collect accurate data on the early stages as try to while they're happening could make things worse
- Culture bias
- Most of the research underlying it took place in western cultures, especially in the US. Relationships in individualist cultures are often voluntary and end frequently. While in collectivist cultures they are often arranged and less easy to end.
- This is a weakness of the model as it means that it isn't generaliable to all cultures
32
Outline reduced cues theory
- Research into virtual relationships has focused on how self-disclosure operates within virtual relationships
- Reduced cues theory suggests that online relationships are much less effective than face to face ones
- The loss of cues like body language and facial expression leads to people being dehumanized, which leads to the loss of inhibition when relating to others
- This leads to blunt and aggressive communication, which are unlikely to make you want to self disclose
33
What is meant by the hyper-personal model?
- Walther (2011)
- Ealy self disclosure in CMC (computer mediated communications) means that relationships develop quickly
- These relationships can also end very quickly due to high excitement and lack of trust
34
Explain why people act differently online - often changing their personality, traits and even gender
- Computer mediated communications, which is engaging in chat rooms, are un-gated interaction
- This means that issues, such as social anxiety, no longer affect people
- The absence of gating mean attention is refocused on what people are saying rather than other superficial factors
- Means relationships can get of the ground quicker and self-disclosure can happen more frequently and be deeper
- The absence of gating also means that people can create online personas that they'd never be able to in real-life
- Online people who are normally introverted can become anything they want
35
Outline two supporting studies for theories on virtual relationships
- Whittey and Joinson (2009)
- Online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate and the responses are equally direct and intimate
- Very different from face to face meetings as they're often "fluffed out" with small talk
- This supports the hyper-personal model
- The way we self-disclose in CMC is designed to portray us in an exaggerated positive light, which aids relationship formation
- McKenna and Bargh (2000)
- Studied socially anxious people and found they were better able to express their "true selves" online than in real life
- Relationships formed from virtual relationships, 70% lasted longer than 2 years, which is a higher proportion than those formed in the real world
- Demonstrates the influence of gating on the formation of face to face relationships and the power of online communications to overcome these issues
36
Outline 2 weaknesses of the studies on virtual relationships
- Walther and Tidwell
- Cues in CMC are simply different than those in face to face
- Emoticons and acrostics (e.g. LOL and ROLF) are effective substitutes
- The idea that there are reduced cues is unfounded
- There may be no difference in self-disclosure between CMC and face to face, reduced cues theory isn't supported
- Relationships are often conducted online and offline
- The interactions between people online affect their relationship face to face
- This includes the level and speed of self-disclosure
- Current theories may underestimate the complexity of virtual relationships
37
Briefly describe what's meant by a "parasocial relationship"
-This term refers to a type of relationship that's similar to a normal relationship but lacks a key element, it's completely one-sided. These are usually formed with celebrities, a fan will spend a lot of time, energy and emotion but the celebrity wont know they exists.
38
Describe the different levels of parasocial relationships
- This is the least intense level of parasocial relationship in which the celebrity is viewed as a source of entertainment and fuel for social interaction e.g. gossip at work.
- The intense-personal stage, which is moderately intense. It involves a greater personal involvement with the celebrity (e.g. posters on walls) and could included having obsessive thoughts about the celebrity (e.g. thinking about them regularly throughout the day)
- The borderline pathological stage, which is the most intense level of parasocial relationship. It is characterized by uncontrolled fantasies and extreme behaviors towards the celebrity e.g. thinking they're in love with you. This stage could see the emergence of illegal behaviors on the celebrities behalf.
39
briefly describe the absorption addiction stage
- McCutcheon (2002) - people form parasocial relationships due to deficiencies in their own lives
- e.g. lack of fulfillment of lack of sense of self
- Parasocial relationship allows a sense of escape
- Someone who's in the entertainment-social stage could be pushed deeper due to a personal crisis
- Absorption - Seeking fulfillment allow the individual to focus their attention on the celebrity; to become preoccupied with their existence and identify with them
- Individuals need to sustain their commitment by feeling a closer and stronger involvement - this can lead to more and more extreme behaviors
40
How can attachment theory be used to explain parasocial relationships?
- Bowlby - early difficulties in forming attachments can lead to difficulties forming relationships later in life
- Such difficulties could lead to a preference for parasocial relationships as they don't require the same social skills
- Insecure attachment types are the most likely to form parasocial relationships
- Resistant - want to have their need met in a relationship where there is no threat of rejection
- Avoidant - prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of any type of relationship
41
How can attachment theory be used to explain parasocial relationships
- Bowlby - early difficulties in attachment may lead to difficulties later on in life
- Such difficulties could lead to a preference for parasocial relationships as they don't require the same social skills
- Insecure attachment types are most likely to form parasocial relationships
- Resistant - want to have their needs met in a relationship where there is no threat of rejection
- Avoidant - prefer to avoid the pain of rejection of any type of relationship, either social or parasocial
42
Evaluate the absorption addiction model
- Strength
- Maltby 2005
- Link between celebrity worship and body image, especially between females reporting an extreme parasocial relationship with a celebrity that has a body shape they admire
- This is linked to a poor body image - could be a precursor to developing anorexia
- Supports the link between celebrity worship and poor psychological stability
- Weakness
- Criticized for being a better description than explanation
- Can describe the characteristics but can't explain why they occur
- A good theory should be able to explain, describe and predict behaviour
- Lacks validity because it can't
43
Evaluate parasocial relationships
- Schmid and Klimmt
- Found similar levels of parasocial relationships in both individualist and collectivist cultures
- Seems like the tendency is not culture specific
- The need to form parasocial relationships may be universal, innate and adaptive
- Most research use self-report techniques
- social desirability bias
- Research also uses correlational data
- Causal links cannot be made
- There is no actual evidence that suggests that parasocial relationships are formed from specific experiences
44
Evaluate the attachment theory approach to parasocial relationships
- McCutcheon et al
- People with insecure attachments were no more likely to form parasocial relationships than people with a secure attachment
- The failure to support for a key feature of the theory raises validity issues
- Limitation of using attachment theory to explain parasocial relationships as it has little predictive validity
