Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
49 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Sexual selection - intersexual |
Strategies males and females use to attract and select the opposite sex |
|
Sexual selection - intrasexual |
Strategies makes use to compete against each other to ensure they are selected for mating |
|
Intersexual selection : females |
1: only produce one egg a month and requires a lot of energy 2: look for a physically fit male typically mesomorph physique 3: mating with a male of desirable traits = this being passed down to offspring 4: females are choosy |
|
Intersexual selection: males |
1: sperm is made in vast quantities with little energy required 2: look for a fertile female eg young hourglass figure 3: a fertile female means more chances of the genes being passed down 3: mate with as many females as possible |
|
Sexual selection evaluation strength |
1: Research support for intersexual selection theory. Clarke and Hatfield uni study. Supports ide 2: Evidence to show difference in sex preferences. Study by buss. Men placed more emphasis on physical attractiveness whereas females emphasised resources |
|
Sexual selection evaluation weaknesses |
1: Methodological flaws with supporting research. Clarke and Hatfield sample too small. Reduces validity 2: Ignored social change and role of the woman. Can’t be generalised |
|
Factors affecting relationships |
Physical attractiveness Signals genetic fitness Halo effect Indicates fertility |
|
Matching hypothesis |
1. We aspire to be with someone with high social desirability 2. We are limited to our own social desirability and therefore usually end up with someone of a similar level |
|
Matching hypothesis - walster |
Dance study Pps told they had been matched with someone of similar level but were actually randomly allocated Regardless of own physical attractiveness everyone responded more positively to attractive people |
|
Matching hypothesis evaluation strengths |
1: Evidence to support matching hypothesis. Murstein: judges asked to rate photos of people. Actual couples were rated similarly. Adds validity 2: What is considered attractive is consistent throughout cultures. Cunningham - Hugh cheekbones large eyes attractive in Hispanic Asian and white men. Universal 3: Evidence to explain contradictory evidence. Sprecher and Hatfield - complex matching. Adds validity |
|
Matching hypothesis evaluation strengths |
1: Evidence to support matching hypothesis. Murstein: judges asked to rate photos of people. Actual couples were rated similarly. Adds validity 2: What is considered attractive is consistent throughout cultures. Cunningham - Hugh cheekbones large eyes attractive in Hispanic Asian and white men. Universal 3: Evidence to explain contradictory evidence. Sprecher and Hatfield - complex matching. Adds validity |
|
Matching hypothesis evaluation weakness |
1: Contradictory evidence. Taylor - no evidence of matching hypothesis in online dating. Reduces validity |
|
Self disclosure |
Voluntarily revealing personal info to someone |
|
Self disclosure - sprecher |
Revealing info about past sexual relationships have greater influence |
|
Self disclosure - shaver |
Self disclosure needs to be reciprocated to be beneficial |
|
Self disclosure - cooper |
Boom and bust |
|
Self disclosure evaluation strengths |
1: Evidence to support importance. Sprecher and hendrick- levels of satisfaction increased with levels of disclosure. Adds validity 2: Cultural differences in patterns of self disclosure. Westerners disclose more than non westerners. Suggests it’s influenced by cultures and is important |
|
Self disclosure evaluation strengths |
1: Evidence to support importance. Sprecher and hendrick- levels of satisfaction increased with levels of disclosure. Adds validity 2: Cultural differences in patterns of self disclosure. Westerners disclose more than non westerners. Suggests it’s influenced by cultures and is important |
|
Self disclosure Evaluation weakness |
1: Methodological issues with evidence. Cause and effect cannot be established as satisfaction could be down to other factors. Question the importance |
|
Filter theory - social demography |
Age social background location |
|
Filter theory - similarity in attitudes |
Psychological characteristics Agreement on attitudes |
|
Filter theory - complementary of needs |
Has to be balanced eg one is caring one needs to be cared for |
|
Filter theory evaluation strengths |
1: Supporting research evidence Kerchoff and Davis carried out questionnaires on relationships Initially found only similarity was relevant |
|
Filter theory evaluation weaknesses |
1: Failure to replicate findings. Levinger found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementary of needs influenced progress towards permanent relationships 2: Criticised for lacking temporal validity, the rise of online dating has dramatically changed the process. May be less valid |
|
ET - underbenefitted |
You feel exploited |
|
Dealing with Inequity |
1) restore actual equity 2) restore psychological equity 3) leave the relationship |
|
Evaluation of ET Strengths |
1: Supporting research evidence Mary Utne studied recently married couples measuring equity using self report. The more equitable the more satisfied. Adds validity |
|
ET Evaluation weakness |
1: Fails to mention cultural differences Collectivist and individualist cultures differed in links with equity and satisfaction 2: Can’t establish cause and effect Dissatisfaction may be the cause of inequity not the consequence |
|
Investment model of relationships - key assumptions |
Satisfaction - feeling rewards Alternatives - judgement on alternative options Investments - house children etc Commitment level - product of high satisfaction high investment and low alternatives |
|
Investment model evaluation strengths |
1: Supporting Evidence Agnew : meta analysis of 52 studies. Relationships which commitment was greatest were the most stable. Adds validity 2: Able to explain abusive relationships Investments low alternatives etc |
|
Investment model evaluation weaknesses |
1: Agnew research is correlational Causality can’t be established as may be other factors. Validity reduced 2: Oversimplifies investment |
|
Ducks relationship breakdown model |
1) intrapsychic phase - identifying a problem 2) dyadic phase - confronting partner 3) social phase - expressing concerns to family and friends 4) grave dressing phase - different accounts of relationships |
|
Relationship breakdown evaluation strengths |
1: Practical applications Possibility of intervening in the breakdown and can stop a relationship ending |
|
Relationship breakdown evaluation weaknesses |
1) Incomplete Resurrection phase : learning from mistakes New model is more valid 2) Methodological issues Research is retrospective and it may be unethical to study relationship breakdown Little scientific evidence |
|
SET - key assumptions |
Relationships are like business transactions Rewards vs cost analysis Relationships maintained if rewards outweigh the costs |
|
Virtual relationships - we disclose more ... |
Detached from reality Time to think of how to respond Quicker |
|
Virtual relationships - we disclose less because .... |
Wary because we don’t know the person Reduced cues theory eg can’t see facial expression |
|
VR - hyper personal model |
Walther Online relationships develop very quickly as self disclosure happens earlier |
|
VR - Absence of gating |
Gates are barrier that get in the way of forming relationships No gates in virtual relationships eg personal appearance mannerisms |
|
VR evaluation strengths |
1) Helps shy people form better relationships Baker and Oswald : Introverts rates their quality of Facebook friends higher 2) Biological evidence Tamir and Mitchell : FMRI scans increased activity in areas associated with pleasure when people were talking about themselves |
|
VR - evaluation weaknesses |
1) Non verbal cues are not reduced Emojis are a substitute Reactions can be personal 2) Type and amount of self disclosure need to be considered eg on a dating site it may be reduced as there is a large chance you will actually meet the person |
|
SET - example of rewards |
Sex Companionship Feelings of being loved |
|
SET - examples of costs |
Loosing time with friends Annoying habits |
|
SET - comparison level |
Comparison of our current level of profit compared to the level of profit in precision relationships |
|
SET - alternate comparison level |
The comparison of current level of profit compared to the level of profit we think we can get from alternate relationships |
|
SET evaluation strengths |
1: Evidence to support influence of comparison levels for alternatives, sprecher : variable associated with relationship commitment was partner comparison level. CL slt High = low satisfaction |
|
SET - evaluation weaknesses |
1: Measuring concepts of SET is difficult , can’t objectively define a “cost” . Reduces validity 2: Overemphasises cost and benefits and ignored other factors, can’t explain satisfaction without acknowledging individual differences |
|
Equity theory - key assumptions |
What matters most is both partners level of profit is equal Equitable relationships with be maintained |
|
ET - overbenefitted |
You feel guilty |