Relationships Flashcards - A Level Psychology AQA

Created by

Trish

Cards (24)

Sexual Selection - AO1
- Sexual selection is particular behaviours or characteristics that might help to attract a mate to reproduce successfully and have healthy offspring with
- Sexual selection can also explain the differences between male and female partners
- Men universally prefer younger women with an hourglass figure as these characteristics indicate fertility
- Females prefer males with resources and can provide protection and security for potential offspring
-Anisogamyrefers to the differences in the male and female sex cells or gametes
- Eggs are more valuable due to the limited number in a lifetime + 9 months of pregnancy
- Sperm is less valuable due to an abundance
-Inter-sexual selection(female choice is based on the idea that due to the great investment of time/energy/resources to raise a child, females need to be more careful/choosey when selecting a partner
-Intra-sexual selection(male strategy) refers to evolutionary developed features that allow males to compete for a female mate
-Dimorphismrefers to clear physical differences between males and females
Sexual Selection - AO3
+ provides evidence for inter-sexual selection ->Buss (1989)-> looked at 10,000 people from 37 cultures -> found women desired good financial mates -> men wanted younger mates -> both wanted intelligent, kind and dependable -> females look for resources and protection + men look for youth + signs of fertility in women

+Clark and Hatfield (1989)-> approached males/females on college campus and asked one of the 3 questions: "would you go on a date with me?", "would you come back to my apartment?", " would you have sex with me?" -> found that females said = 50% date, 6% apartment, 0% sex -> males said = 50% date, 69% apartment, 75% sex -> this highlights clear differences between the sexes in terms of sexual behaviours -> links to inter-sexual selection -> anisogamy is the reason for this

- BUT the study ignores cofounding factors which affect females results -> the differences could be due to concerns on their own safety -> society was more liberal then -> women can enjoy sex
Sexual Selection - AO3
+ reductionist -> the theory states we all look for people to enhance our reproductive success -> it doesn't explain same sex relationships -> homosexual relationships don't have to aim for reproduction -> and some couples may not want to have children

+ determinism -> males have no control over instincts -> provides excuse for cheating -> but not all men cheat
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attractiveness - AO1
- Physical attractiveness is the degree to which a person's physical features are considered aesthetically pleasing/beautiful -> we are programmed to find certain traits attractive which are signs of good genes + health
-Shackleford + Larsen (1997)-> people with symmetrical faces rated as more attractive + sign of genetic fitness
-Bowlby (1953)-> Baby Face Hypothesis -> these trigger a protective and caring instinct -> creates feelings of attraction
-Dion et al (1972)-> The Halo Effect -> physically attractive people seen to have more positive characteristics associated with them -> makes them more attractive and we behave positively toward them
-Walster et al (1966)-> Matching Hypothesis -> we choose partners who are similar level of physical attractiveness to us -> we desire the most attractive partner but balance this against avoiding rejection from someone 'out of our league
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attractiveness - AO3
+Towhey (1979)-> looked at individual differences in how important physical attractiveness is -> gave males and females photos of people and asked them to judge how much they like them -> oversimplifies importance of physical attraction -> participants did a MACHO scale to see sexist attitudes -> those scoring high more affected by the Halo Effect -> since they gave a higher rating to the photos as they associated good characteristics with the attractive photos

- contradicts Matching Hypothesis ->The Computer Dancestudy byWalster (1966)-> when brought a ticket it would randomly assign any partner instead of the ideal mate -> asked how much they liked their partner -> results found men asked our partner if they found them attractive regardless of their attractiveness -> BUT results could be different now where women may ask men who are out of their league -> in 1966 women were less likely to ask men out
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attractiveness - AO3
+Feingold (1988)-> found a correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners -> this looked at actual partners which is a realistic approach -> BUT it's a correlation
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-disclosure - AO1
Self-disclosure
- is the communication of personal thoughts and feelings with another person (Jourard)
- involves revealing personal information about yourself
- romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops
- these revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately

Social Penetration Theory-Altman + Taylor
- relationships involve gradual process of revealing our inner self to someone
- involves reciprocal exchange of information between partners
- lead to deep understanding of each other's lives
- two elements =breadth+depth
- LOW risk info revealed early in relationship
- HIGH risk info revealed as relationship progresses
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-disclosure - AO3 
+ real life application -> help people improve their relationships to increase intimacy and strengthen bond ->Hass + Staffordfound 57% of gay men + women said self-disclosure was main way they maintained their relationship -> shows SD can be used in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships -> BUT since only 57% then there may be other factors which maintain the relationship like physical attractiveness

- cultural differences ->Tang et alreviewed research on sexual self-disclosure -> found men/women in USA disclose more significantly than men/women in China -> suggests SD is culturally bias to only support individualistic cultures like USA but not collectivist cultures like China where there aren't the same views on self-disclosure

-Duck's Theory-> Social Penetration Theory states relationships become more intimate through using SD -> Duck found couples will discuss their state of their deteriorating relationship in an attempt to save it using SD -> but this may not save the relationship and instead aid in breaking down the relationship from discovering more about their partners
Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory - AO1 
Kerckhoff + Davis
- used 94 students in relationship for less than 18 months (short-term) + more than 18 months (long-term)
- self reported on shared values + attitudes + needed complementarity
- 7 months after questioning asked how close they felt compared to beginning
- found attitude similarity most important for short-term
- couples complementing each other needs most important for long-term

Filter Theory
- we choose a partner by narrowing down field of available + desirables using different filters

Filter 1 =Social Demography
-> age, social background, geographical location

Filter 2 =Similarity in Attitudes(short-term)
-> self-disclosure -> rewarding

Filter 3 =Complementary of Needs(long-term)
-> how well 2 people fit together to meet each other's needs
Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory - AO3
+ supports social demography ->Festinger et alobserved friendships formed in apartments for married students -> found students were 10x more likely to form friendships with people in same building -> most popular people lived near to staircases -> suggests more we see people the more attraction for them -> BUT only looks at friendships -> not relationships

- methodological issues ->Kerckhoff + Davischose 18 months as cut-off point for short term vs long term relationships -> assumed partners who had been longer together had more committed + deeper relationship -> due to this couldn'treplicatefindings (Levinger) -> ALSO lacks temporal validity -> now ease of travel + communication through internet

- challenges similarity of attitudes ->Andersonfound in longitudinal study that cohabitating partners became more similar in emotional responses over time =emotional convergence-> therefore shows similarities may become effect of relationship rather then a reason why we get together in a relationship
Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory - AO1
Thibault + KelleyIt's anEconomicTheory
- we attempt to maximise out rewards + minimise our costs
- the rewards minus the costs = outcome
- we commit to relationships if the outcome is profitable

Comparison Level
- we develop a CL which is a product of our experiences in other relationships + general expectations
- a relationship will form if profit exceeds our CL

Comparison Level forAlternatives
- we weight up potential increase in rewards from alternative partner against costs with ending current relationship

Relationship Development
- 4 stages we go through when forming + maintaining relationship

Stage 1 =Sampling
- we consider rewards + costs of relationships avaliable

Stage 2 =Bargining
- we give + receive rewards to test if relationship is worth while

Stage 3 =Commitment
- relationship increases in predictability so partners know what rewards to give to lower costd

Stage 4 =Institutionalisation
- relationship norms develop which establishes pattern of rewards + costs for each partner
Theories of Romantic Relationships: Social Exchange Theory - AO3 
- direction of cause and effect is unclear ->Argle-> states limited theory -> we don't always weigh up profits when in happy relationship -> only weigh up profits if we are dissatisfied -> therefore highlights SET problem as we don't use CL + CLA to develop and maintain a relationship

+ real-life applications -> can be used in couples counselling ->Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy(IBCT) -> improves rates of positive exchanges in relationship ->Christiensen et alfound 2/3 of couples had significant improvement -> BUT not all couples -> could be another factor which improved relationship like creating balance in their relationship

- oversimplifies romantic relationships by adding economics ->Clark + Mills-> found SET only applies toexchange relationshipslike colleagues but notcommunal relationshipslike friends + lovers -> as its from desire to respond to needs of person care about -> theory ignores role of love in relationships
Theories of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory - AO1
Equity Theory -Hatfield
- one partner benefits + cost equal to other partner
- give little, recieve little and vice versa
- equity = LESS likely to have extra marital affairs
- correlation between equity + satisfaction
- under-benefiting = feel anger, sadness + resentment
- over-benefiting = feel shame, guilt + pity

Resolving Inequity
1)Actual= try to set things right or urge partner to do so
2)Psychological= convince themselves its fine when it isn't
3)Leave= separate/detach psychologically (no longer have feelings for partner)
Theories of Romantic Relationships: Equity Theory - AO3
+Utne et al-> surveyed 188 recently married couples -> together at least 2 years -> measured equity with self-repot scales -> found couples who considered relationship equitable MORE satisfied than those who felt over-benefiting + under-benefiting -> BUT it's a correlation -> doesn't mean causation -> ALSO BUT it's self-report -> could have social desirability bias which effect validity of results

-Clark + Mills-> theory doesn't apply to romantic relationships -> takes about economic theory -> only applies toexchange relationshipslike colleagues but notcommunal relationshipslike friends + lovers -> as its from desire to respond to needs of person care about -> theory ignores role of love in relationships -> therefore shouldn't apply principles

- individual differences ->Huseman et al-> identified different categories of individuals ->benevolent= givers who more tolerant of lack of rewards ->equity sensitives= behave as theory predicts ->entitled= prefer to be overrewarded -> feel entitled to receive + experience dissatisfaction if equitable
or under-benefited -> theory ignores individual differences and generalises
Theories of Romantic Relationships: The Investment Model of Commitment - AO1
Rusbult (2011)

Satisfaction
- lots of rewards + fewer costs = satisfaction

Comparison with Alternatives
- is there a better alternative to satisfy my needs?
- does it outweigh costs of leaving?

Investment
- is anything that a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if it ends?
-intrinsicinvestment = put in by each individual (time + money)
-extrinsicinvestments = shared things that may be lost (children + house + pets)
- the GREATER the investment, the MORE likely they are to commit to stay!

Commitment
- suggests the maintenance of relationship is determined by commitment
- commitment = the likelihood that the relationship will persist
- to strengthen -> satisfaction + investment
- to weaken -> presence of alternatives to the relationship
Theories of Romantic Relationships: The Investment Model of Commitment - AO1
Maintenance Mechanisms

-accommodation= acting in a way that promotes the relationship rather than keeping a tally of costs + rewards

-willingness to sacrifice= putting partners interests first

-forgiveness= willingness to forgive partners mistakes both minor + serious ones

-positive illusions= being unrealistically positive about partners qualities

-ridiculing alternatives= minimising advantages of potential alternatives + viewing them in negative light
Theories of Romantic Relationships: The Investment Model of Commitment - AO3
+ supportive evidenceLe + Agnew-> meta analysis 52 studies from 70s to 90s with over 11,000 participants from 5 countries (UK, USA, Netherlands, Israel, Taiwan) -> found satisfaction, CLA + investment size all predicted relationship commitment -> commitment = longer lasting relationships -> strengthens validity of theory shows Rusbult factors are universally important to maintain relationships -> BUT self-report -> could be social desirability bias -> ALSO BUT correlation not a causation

+ explains abusive relationships ->Rusbult + Martzapplied investment model to abusive relationships -> asked women living in refugee why they stayed with abusive partner -> women felt greatest commitment when their economic alternatives were poor + investment was great -> therefore apply knowledge to victims of abuse -> BUT doesn't look at men
Theories of Romantic Relationships: The Investment Model of Commitment - AO3
- ignores future investments ->Goodfriend + Agnewcritiqued theory for being oversimplified -> only looks at investments that have already happened -> argued couples plans for future acts as an investment as partners commit to see the plans in action -> shows how investment model needs to account for complexity of investments -> makes theory reductionist
Duck's Breakdown of Relationships - AO1
1)Intra-psychic Stage
- person admits they are dissatisfied with relationship
- focuses on person's internal thought processes that occurs before confronting their partner
- "I can't stand this anymore"

2)Dyadic Stage
- confront their partner + voices their dissatisfaction
- rethink their alternatives
- "I would be justified in withdrawing"

3)Social Phase
- involve friends and family to make distress public
- makes reconciliation more problematic as friends and family intervene in relationship
- "I mean it"
- leads to dissolution of relationship

4)Grave Dressing
- minimise your faults + maximise their partner's faults
- try to show themselves as trustworthy + loyal to attract new partner
- "It's time to start a new life"
Duck's Breakdown of Relationships - AO3 
- methodological issues -> relies on self-reporting -> social desirability bias to put themselves in best light -> retrospective -> after break up occurred -> lacks validity -> affected by what you've been through -> BUT unethical to research when partners are together

+ real life applications -> if we can identify the stage partners are in -> we can deliver suitable couples therapy to resolve the issues

- cultural bias -> model based on individualist culture where ending relationship is easily obtainable + doesn't carry stigma -> collectivist cultures have family involved so greater investment -> makes relationship difficult to end -> breakup process doesn't follow Duck's phases -> assumes breakups process is universal but clearly not

- theory is limiting ->Tashiro + Frazier(2003) -> surveyed students found those who recently broke up felt they had gained new insight to themselves -> lead to development of 5th stage =Resurrection Phase-> where partners turn attention to future relationships using what they have learnt from previous -> also states the process can occur in different order then stated -> BUTAkert-> showed resurrection phase may only apply to person who initiated the breakup -> other partner would feel anger or resentment
Virtual Relationships - AO1
Hyper personal Model-Walther
- self disclosure happens earlier online then in face to face
- relationship quickly become more intense + intimate
- can also end quickly as difficult to sustain the intense self-disclosure = BOOM + BUST
- virtual feel more intimate because can easily manipulate SD online then face to face =Selective Self-presentation

Stranger on a train- Rubin
- we disclose personal info to people we don't know and probably won't see again
- don't worry about people close to us hearing info

Reduced Cues Theory-Sprowl + Kiesler
- virtual are less open + honest
- face to face we rely on subtle cues like facial expressions which absent in virtual
- leads tode-individualisation
- online more aggressive as consequences are less serve
- SD less to others from fear of VERBAL VIOLENCE

Absence of Gating
- gate is any obstacle in forming a relationship
- face to face interactions is gated because involves feature that can interfere with relationship development
- e.g. physical attractiveness, social anxiety, age
- virtual relationships gates are absent so more opportunities for people to develop relationships
Virtual Relationships - AO3
- type of virtual interactions have different effects -> chat rooms would have different levels of disclosure than computer games chats -> because one would lead to face to face interactions whereas the other wouldn't -> people disclose more when their less likely to meet in real life

- absence of gating being misleading or dangerous -> makes it easier for people to be aggressive or rude -> so they would be dishonest about themselves -> since they are deindividualized -> could be dangerous for criminals for grooming to lie and approach young children

+ absence of gating means that shy people can build relationships -> no need to be pressured to do something they may fell socially awkward to do -> people have stronger need to disclose as the absence of facial expressions and emotions make people focus on things like personality instead
Para-social Relationships - AO1
Levels of Para-social relationships
-Entertainment-social
-> celeb is source of gossip
-Intense-personal
-> compulsive feelings towards celebrity/ believe soulmate
-Borderline-pathological
-> uncontrollable behaviours/fantasies/ spending large amounts of money/stalking

Absorption-addiction model- McCutcheon
- PSR form due to deficiencies in life
- weak sense of self and fulfilment in everyday life -> acts as a way to escape reality
- someone in entertainment level may move up a level due to trauma or stress
- absorption = become preoccupied with celeb + identify with them
- addiction = need to sustain your commitment to celeb and behaviours become more extreme

Attachment Theory
- insecure-resistant more likely to have PSR
- resistant concern other won't reciprocate desire for intimacy + turn to celebs to satisfy their unrealistic needs
- PSR don't involve chance of rejection
- avoidant least likely as find difficult to maintain relationships so unlikely to seek from real + fictional people
Para-social Relationships - AO3
- self report methods -> like interviews or questionnaires which may have social desirability bias -> may not be truthful to make them look better and not crazy -> reasons for developing a PSR could be different then those found -> lowers validity of these explanations so can't be generalised to real life

+ useful applications ->Maltbylinked personality types: extravert, neurotic, psychotic to levels of PSR -> supported the absorption-addiction model -> suggests that research into PSR can help improve understanding of psychological disorders and help people with psychological disorders

- correlational research -> cause and effect cannot be clearly established ->Maltby et alfound correlation between poor body image and intensive celebrity worship -> could be that girls who have poor body image tend to engage in intensive levels of PSR to enhance their self-esteem