Relationships Flashcards - A Level Psychology AQA

• 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