relationships

• sexual selection a01

  • darwin theory - charcteristic evolvve bc they have reporductive advantage
  • intra-sexual selection - males - quantity over quality
  • inter-sexual selection - females - opposite - more effort in birth - trivers
  • fisher - sexy son hypothesis - prefered characteristic to pass on to son
• sexual selection a03

  1. Buss females place greater importance on resource related characteristic - Males more interested in looks - support prediction for partner preference derived from sexual selection -applied cross-culturally - across 33 different countries.
  2. sleep with me a03 - Clark and Hatfield - no female said yes whereas 75% of males said yes - Shows that females are choosier and have evolved a diff strategy to males.
• sexual selection a03 p3

  3. Bereczkei - social change mean that women preference are no longer source oriented - Chang et al - compared partner preference in china over 25 years and found that there has been some change - women role in the workplace = they are less dependant on men as providers
• self disclosure a01

  1. sd - desire to learn about partner - more sharing = more understanding
  2. social penetration theory - altman and taylor - trust is formed with sd - penetrate deeper into lives
  3. breadth and depth - onion analogy
  4. reciprocity - reis & shaver - increase intimacy through reciprocity of sd
• sd a03

  1. sprecher and hendrick - strong correation between rs satifaction - further supported by laurenceau - correlation of intimacy and sd - increases validity -
  2. hass & stafford - 57% gay men said sd was the way they maintained rs
  3. tang et al - usa disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than in china - limited generalizability - cultral relativism
• physical attractiveness a01

  1. matching hypothesis - walster choosing ppl with similar attractiveness
  2. neotenous features - shackleford and larsen - baby face triggers protectitive instinct - symmertrical faces more attractive
  3. halo effect - dion et al - hot ppl rated as kind, strong sociable and successful
• physical attractive a03

  1. palmer and peterson - hot ppl more politically knowlegeable - implication for political process - halo effect exists in other areas of life
  2. cunningham et al - features viewed as attractive are the same across white,hispanic and asian - attractiveness is important regardless of cultural
  3. taylor et al - online daters tend to choose people more attractive to them - goes against the idea of choosing similarity level attractiveness to avoid rejection
• filter theory a01

  • kerckoff and davis - everyone has field of availbles but not every available is desirable - narrow down our field of desireables

  1. social demographic
  2. similarity in attitudes - need to agree over basic values
  3. complementary of needs - they form a whole and meet eachothers needs
• filter theory a03

  1. winch - similarties in personality and attitudes are typical of earliest stages of rs - better than matching hypothesis
  2. levinger - base study of filter theory failed to be replicated - due to social change
  3. anderson et al - cohabiting partners become more similar - correlation not causation
• social exchange theory a01 - thibault and kelly

  1. maximise reward, minimise costs and profits
  2. comparison level - amount believe to deserve - link to high and low self-esteem
  3. camprison level with alternatives - if we could gain better from another relationship
  4. rs development - sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation
• set a03

  1. clark and mill - romantic rs dont keep track of who gives and receives
  2. argyle - firection of cause and effect - we become dissatisfied then weigh up not become dissatisfied bc of the weigh up
  3. ignores equity - much more support for role of equity/fairness than just balance of rewards and costs
• equity theory a01 - walster

  1. level of profit should be the same not equal - under/over benefit
  2. equity and equality - variable amounts to maintain equity - may put a lot but get more happiness
  3. perception of equality changes - may be ok in the beginning but over time may lead to dissatisfaction
  4. dealing with inequality - put upon partners to put more effort in - cognitive and revise inequalites until they become fair and a norm in rs
• equity theory a03

  1. utne et al - couples who consider their rs are more satisfied - increases validity
  2. ryan et al - individulaistic cultures found equitable more satisfying whereas collectivist were satisfied when over benefitting - imposed etic / cultural relativsim
  3. huseman et al - some care less about equity and are willing to contribute more - benelovents - failing to create general laws - nomothetic
• rusbults investment model - a01

  • maintenance is determined by commmittment which is based on

  1. satisfaction level
  2. compariosn with alternatives
  3. investment size - bigger investment size = more likely to stay

  • satisfaction vs committment - explain why dissatisfied partners stay
  • maintenance mechanism - accomidation,forgiveness,willingness to sacrifice, positive illusions and ridiculing alternatives
• investment model a03

  1. le and agnew - all 3 factor predicted committment for homo/hetro sexual from 5 diff countries rs
  2. rusbult and martz - abusive rs - most likely to return reposted making most investment and fewer alternatives -
  3. goodfriend and agnew - oversimplifies investment - future planning can increase commitment
• duck a01

  1. intrapsychic - weigh up pros and cons
  2. dyadic - confrontation
  3. social - making it public
  4. grave dressing - rs end and time to bury it
• duck a03

  1. incomplete model - rollie and duck - added a 5th stage
  2. real world application - councelling can be provided
  3. moghddam - collectivist cultures are more involved in a break so it will be harder to go through the breakup
• virtual rs a01

  1. self-disclosure - less online than ftf bc of absence of a physical presence
  2. reduced cues - sproull and kiesler - cmc lacks cues that we depend on irl - eg tone and expressions - deindividuation and become more disinhibted
• virtual rs a01 p2

  1. hyperpersonal model - walther - cmc become more personal than ftf - sd happens earlier and more intense - selective self representation
  2. rs and gating - ftf is gated as it involved features that influence development eg physical attractiveness - mckenna and bargh - cmc develop quicker as there is absence of gating - individuals can creat the personal they want
• virtual rs a03

  1. walther and tidwell - emojies can be used to replace facial expression - goes against reduced cues theory
  2. whitty and joinson - questions in chatrooms are more deeper and person - supports hyperpersonal model
  3. mckenna and bargh - found lonely and anxious ppl were ables to express their true self more online than ftf