• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/89

Click to flip

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;

89 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Reward/need satisfaction? ( direct reinforcement)
Operant conditioning could occur when an individual is positively reinforced with the potential partner offering pleasant stimulus e.g smiling. Additionally the potential partner may provide for social needs such as friendship and sex, furthering the likelihood of the relationship developing.
Reward/need satisfaction? (negative reinforcement)
This may be when a negative stimulus is removed by the potential partner. For example if a women has helped a man through a troubled time in his life he may find her more attractive as she has helped to alleviate his negative stimuli.
Liking through association? (classical conditioning)
The potential partner may be associated with pleasant circumstances. If someone was in a good mood and they met another individual, they may associate such other individual with the positive mood, consequently finding them more attractive because of the association.
May and Hamilton? (Classical conditioning)
Female students listened to pleasant music, unpleasant music or no music while rating the appearances of photos of male strangers. Those who rated while listening to the pleasant music rated the strangers as better looking.
Aron et al?
Investigated the brain activation of 17 individuals who reported being intensely in love, using MRI scans. They asked P's to rate who much in love they were. It was found that the dopamine rich areas of the brain associated with reward were activated to a greater extent when individuals were shown a photo of the person whom they have fallen in love with, in contrast to someone they just liked.
Amount of activity is correlated with the degree to which they felt love.
Aron et al? (rewards are not always important) (EVAL)
They gathered accounts of falling in love from 522 participants using questionnaires and written accounts. They then compared them to accounts of forming friendships. They found that there was relatively little support for the idea that relationship formation is dependent on rewards.
Relationship formation- deterministic?
It suggests that when others provide us with reinforcement or are in some way associated with reinforcement, relationships are more likely to form with those individuals. The implication is that if there is no reinforcement then relationships will not form.
Relationship formation- ethnocentric?
Collectivist cultures do not have the same emphasis on the need for reward and satisfaction of the individual. They are self sacrificing and are concerned with the wellbeing of the group rather than their own individual needs.
Relationships formation- Reductionist?
Relationships initiation is broken down into stimulus and response, and does not account for more complicated formations.
Relationship formation- gender differences?
Women may be socialised into putting their needs as secondary to others, as demanded by society in which we live in. The reward mechanisms if therefore seen as different for women, and this different from women in other cultures.
Relationships formation-cultural differences?
The theory mainly applies to western cultures where the pursuit of personal happiness if more important in for formation of personal relationships than it is in other cultures.
Aron et al (eval) of research?
The MRI scan is and objective measurement of the way in which the brain works, there can be no bias of any sort, and therefore is more valid as the results are true.
May and Hamilton? (eval)
Lacks ecological validity as it doesn't reflect a real life situation or conditions.
The matching hypothesis?
Couples seek to form relationships with the best possible partner they think they can attract. They also want to feel they have the best possible partner that wont reject them.
1) The more socially desirable a person is, the more desirable they would expect their partner to be.
2) Couples who are matched in terms of their social desirability are more likely to have a happy relationship that are couples who are mismatched.
Halo effect?
The more attractive you are the more attributes people will pin to you.
Walster et al. (Computer dance study)? Method.
752 participants were rated on attractiveness by four independent judges, as a measure of social desirability.
They filled in questionnaires supposedly for the purposes of computer pairing. Judges paired them on similar levels of attractiveness. They then rated the date during the dance.
Walster et al. (Computer dance study)? (Conclusion)
Regardless of attractiveness, more attractive students were favoured as dates over the less attractive students.
'Physical attractiveness effect' was greater than any 'matching effect' or any concerns about rejection.
Murstein face study?
Showed photographs of steady or engaged couples to participants, along with some pictures of 'random' couples put together for the purpose of the experiment. The real couples were judged consistently to be more similar to each other in terms of physical attractiveness than were the random couples.
Matched hypothesis- Eval- reductionist?
People may pair on other things like personality rather than physical attractiveness, and basing the formation of relationships on just physical attractiveness overlooks the complexity of attraction to someone.
Matched hypothesis- eval-Biological determinism?
Physical attractiveness is something we are mostly born with, and therefore this explanation In the formation is very deterministic, as it states that we will end up with someone who is the same level of attractiveness as us.
Matched hypothesis- eval - research support?
Huston (1993) conducted a study that examined whether the possibility of rejection played a part in the process of formation of relationships. Men were shown pictures of women who has previously been rated for their physical attractiveness and were asked to say which one they would prefer to date.
It was found that men were more likely to choose attractive women, but only if they though they wouldn't be rejected.
Matched hypothesis- eval- gender differences?
Takeuchi (2006) has shown that a gender difference exists in how far physical attractiveness is valued by an opposite-sex partner. Physical attractiveness of women appears to be valued more heavily by men, but of men is valued less by women and so has less of an impact on women perception of the social desirability of men. Men can compensate with other desirable characteristics.
Matched hypothesis- eval- heterosexual bias?
Homosexual interactions have not been considered, and therefore this research cannot be applied to all relationships, only that of heterosexual people.
Matched hypothesis-eval- empirical evidence shows research bias?
With the Walster dance study there was researcher bias and this therefore reduced the validity of the theory as the results have been flawed or manipulated.
Social exchange theory?
For the individual the best result from a relationship would be to make a profit, for this to occur, there must be minimum cost and maximum reward. The principles of operant conditioning apply in this theory. If something is rewarding, we pursue and value it. Examples of rewards is good looks, money and loyalty. Costs would be money invested, time spent with family etc.
Rewards minus costs equals the outcomes of a relationship. Commitment to a relationship is dependent on the 'profitability' of this outcome.
Comparison levels?
The comparison level is a comparison between the current relationship and what we have been used to in the past or believe is appropriate in the current relationship. If the reference relationship compares favourably, the person is motivated to stay In the relationships.
Comparison level for alternatives is concerned with the benefits of possible alternative relationships. An alternative partner may offer more positive outcomes. If the person feels they might do better with a new partner, they may end the current relationship.
Social exchange - Simpson et al.?
Investigated how people deal with the threat of potential alternatives. They asked participants to rate members of the opposite sex in terms of their physical attractiveness and found that those participants who were already involved in a relationship gave lower ratings. This has the effect of lowering perceived profits associated with a potential new partner and so reducing any threat to the existing relationship.
Social exchange- abusive relationships?
Rusbult and Martz argue that the principles of social exchange can be used to explain why some women stay in abusive relationships. When investments are high and alternatives are relatively low then even an abusive relationship may be regarded as profitable one, and the women may then be motivated to stay in the relationship.
Social exchange-cultural bias?
Moghaddam suggests that 'economic' theories such as social exchange and equity theories only apply to western cultures and even then only to certain types of relationships among individuals with high social mobility. Less mobile groups and members of many non-western cultures would be more likely to value security in a relationship that personal profit.
Equity theory?
Inequity in relationships has the greater potential to create dissatisfaction.
People try to maximise their rewards in a relationship.
Trading rewards between both parties occurs to ensure fairness.
Inequity produces dissatisfaction with the person who receives the lower level of reward experience the most dissatisfaction.
The loser will endeavour to rectify the situation, and the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the effort to remedy the situation.
Stafford and Canary- Equity theory?
Asked over 200 couples to complete measures of equity and marital satisfaction. Satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationship to be equitable and lowest for partners who considered themselves to be relatively under benefited. These finding are consistent with the predictions of equity theory.
Equity theory-evaluation- not all couples apply the principle of equity?
Clark and Mills suggested that some couples also work 'communally' This means that they want to love and care for each other. They do not see their relationship as a situation where they have to give and receive in equal amounts.
Equity theory-evaluation- gender differences?
Women are more likely to have extra marital affairs if they think that their relationship is inequitable and that they are the 'loser'. Indeed, many report that they have affairs for this reason. Whereas with males extra marital affairs tends to be sexual.
Equity theory-evaluation- cultural differences?
Aumer- Ryan et al. interviewed men and women at the university of Hawaii (individualist culture) and the university of the west indies in Jamaica (collectivist culture). They found a cultural difference in how men and women from different cultures reacted to perceived inequities in their relationships. The Hawaiian sample were most satisfied when they perceived their relationship as equitable, but the Jamaican sample were more satisfied when they perceived themselves to be over benefitting.
Equity theory-evaluation- real life relationships?
Equity is not as important in real-life relationship as the theory suggests. Relationships in the modern world are more sophisticated, and a simple cost/benefit analysis is too simplistic.
Duck, 1989- Relationship breakdown?
Lacks of skills.
Lack of stimulation.
Maintenance difficulties.
Lack of skills- relationship breakdown?
Communication, social skill and sympathy.
They lack the interpersonal skills to make the mutually satisfying. Individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people. and are likely to be generally unrewarding in their interactions with other people.
Lack of stimulation- relationship breakdown?
Interests, sex, money.
According to social exchange theory people for rewards in their relationships , one of which is 'stimulation'. We would therefore expect that lack of stimulation would be a reason why relationships break down.
Maintenance difficulties- relationships breakdown?
Not able to see each other regularly, no effort made.
Relationships become strained simply because partners cannot see each other enough.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown? (Breakdown)
One partner becomes increasingly dissatisfied with the relationship. If this dissatisfaction is reaches a high enough level, there is a progression to the next set of stages.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown? (Intrapsychic)
Interally: The individual may feel resentment towards their partner an become socially withdrawn. They may start to focus on partners faults while considering other possible alternatives for partners.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown (Dyadic)
Relationship problems are talked about, where reconciliation may occur. Discussion at this stage may be constructive to alleviate problems or if not, destructive conversation may lead them to want to leave.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown (Social stage)
The breakup is announced to friends and relatives, where advice and support are sought. They may blame the other partner for the relationship breaking up so as to reduce social implications of leaving the relationships.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown (Grave-dressing)
They provide different accounts of why the relationship broken down for different listeners. They may describe how the relationship came about, what it was like and why it dissolved.
Rollie and ducks model of breakdown (Resurrection)
Prepare for new relationships and think about what they want from a new relationship and what they should avoid.
Model of breakdown- a heterosexual bias?
This model has been developed from the experiences of heterosexual individuals. As a result they may not represent the experiences of other groups such as gay and lesbian partnerships.
Model of breakdown- Real life application?
Can prevent breakdown of a relationship. Duck claims that by paying attention to the topics that people discuss and how they talk about their relationship, it may be possible to intervene before the breakdown progresses. This not only offers an indication about their stage in the process, but may also suggest interventions appropriate to that stage.
Model of breakdown- Ethnocentric bias?
Most research is based on data from white, middle class individuals and therefore displays an ethnocentric bias. As relationships are affected by the culture in which they form, then social expectation when the relationship breaks down will also effect the process of the break-up.
Model of breakdown- methodology?
Questionnaires were used to develop their theory so investigator bias may be present in their interpretation.
Akert- model of breakdown?
There is a variation in the psychological reactions of the breakup where the person who initiated the breakup experiences less negative symptoms. Males cut their losses and females stay friends after.
Intersexual selection?
Females make a greater investment in their offspring and so must take care to choose the best-quality mate. As there is usually no shortage of males, this leads to selection between sexes.
intrasexual selection?
Males must compete with other males for access to mates, and this leads to selection within the same sex.
Sexual selection and reproductive success?
If a particular characteristic becomes established as a universal preference among males, then females with the characteristic will have greater chance of reproductive success.
Sexual selection- Buss (1989)
Investigated the mate preferences of human males and found that males in most cultures regarded the female 'hourglass' shape as particularly attractive. In terms of sexual selection theory, this is logical because this shape is an indicator of fertility in women.
Sexual selection- female facial preferences?
According to research there are distinct 'masculine' facial characteristics that females find attractive e.g large jaw, prominent cheekbones. These characteristics arise as a result of male sex hormones such as testosterone.
Geher et al. ( Parental investment)?
Asked undergraduates to complete a scale that measured how prepared they perceived themselves to be parenting.
The scale found no difference in the perceptions of males and females in their perceived readiness for parenting.
Males showed significantly higher autonomic nervous system arousal, when presented with scenarios that emphasised the psychological costs.
Geher et al. (Parental investment)? ( methodological issues)
GSR measures arousal.
Feeling anxiety generates the same response.
This would therefore reduce the validity as the responses may not be true due to the response being for anxiety rather than the scenarios presented.
Geher et al. ( Social desirability bias)?
Men may feel the need to answer in the way that is considered socially acceptable, and therefore may give the answer that they are ready for parenthood when in fact they aren't. Men may see that parent potential is important in seeking a partner, however may not be able to provide this readiness.
Benefits to women of cuckoldry?
The benefits women would gain from such behaviour would include additional social support from the other male and perhaps higher-quality genes for her children.
Risks to women of cuckoldry?
There are risks associated with extra-marital mating, including possibility of abandonment and the use of mate- retention strategies by their current partner, such as threats or violence.
Anderson- Cuckoldry isn't an issue?
Examined help given by fathers and step-fathers to children and how their relationship with the mother affected investment levels.
Measured paternal investment in terms of financial support and time spent with child.
Men did not discriminate between children born to their current partner from her previous relationship and their own children,
Evidence for sex differences in jealousy- Buss et al. (1992)?
Males are more likely to experience sexual jealousy and females are more likely to experience emotional jealousy. Males students showed a high galvanic skin response (GSR) when asked to imagine sexual infidelity by their partner, whereas women did when emotional infidelity was pictured.
Harris (2003)- sex differences in jealousy?
Men respond with greater arousal to any sexual imagery, regardless of its context, and therefore questions whether such sex differences are an adaptive response, or social learning.
Parental investment- influenced by life experiences?
Personality characteristics, quality of relationship with their mother, characteristics of child and Inherited individual differences in parenting emphasis may all play a role.
Research has suggested that those who experienced parental divorce in childhood positively correlate with the degree to which men invest.
Parental investment- free will and determinism?
Its suggested that men have an inbuilt feeling to parent less due to cuckoldry risks. However this says that men's parental investment is determined. However research has shown that men will invest in children who are not biologically theirs.
Bowlby?
Suggested that a child's primary attachment figure was the 'blueprint' for subsequent relationships in their life. Based on their childhood experiences with their primary attachment figure, the individual forms a schema of:
- what a relationship is
- how reliable and available the attachment figure is
- the sorts of emotions experience they may expect.
Internal working models?
Influence the child's expectations about future relationships. Adult relationships are therefore also likely to reflect early attachment styles.
Attachment and adult relationships- Simpson et al.?
78 participants at four key points in their life. The researchers found that participants who were securely attached as infants:
- were rated as having higher levels of social competence as children.
- were closer to their friends as 16 years olds.
- were more expressive and more emotionally attached to their romantic partners in early adulthood.
Simpson et al. ( methodological issues)?
This cannot determine causality, but enables researchers to predict likely outcomes in specified circumstances.
Hazan and Shafer?
Used a questionnaire which asked adults to comment on their early attachment experiences and the most important relationship of their life so far.
- People who were securely attached as infants tended to have happy and lasting relationships is adulthood. They also believed that love as both enduring and based on mutual trust.
-Adults who had been insecurely attached as infants found adult relationships more difficult and were more likely to be divorced; they were also more pessimistic about the possibility of finding true love.
Hazan and Shafer (retrospective data)?
Have to recall data from early childhood, would not be as reliable, as event that occurred may of been forgotten. Validity is also a concern, as complete accuracy is unlikely.
Hazan and Shafer ( Social desirability bias)?
Use of self-report measures may be a concern, as people want to give a good impression of how well adjusted and secure they are in relationships.
Childhood and adult relationships- determinism?
Early experiences have a fixed influence on later adult relationships. It is implied that children who are insecurely attached in childhood will experience unsatisfying relationships as adults.
Childhood and adult relationships- cultural differences?
Parenting style varies cross-culturally, it therefore stands to reason that the influence of childhood experience on adult relationship will also vary cross-culturally.
Interaction with peers-Qualter and Munn?
Found that childrens interactions with other children enable them to learn more about themselves, they internalise these experiences and develop expectations about future relationships.
Nangle et al. (2003)?
Highlight the importance of friendship in this process. Having a close friend to trust and confide in helps children learn how to take part in emotionally imitate relationships, through feelings of acceptance and of being understood by another person.
Individualist cultures?
Such as the UK and the USA, there is greater emphasis on I rather than WE in interpersonal relationships. Where there is a conflict between the goals of the individual and the goals of the collective, personal needs are more important.
Collectivist cultures?
Such as Pakistan or Thailand, more value is placed on WE than I. The desires of the particular individuals are considered less important than ties between and responsibilities, to collective units. Marriage is more a union between families.
Geographical and social mobility and partner choice? (Individualist)
In many Western, Industrialised societies, people enjoy considerable geographical and social mobility. They are free to interact with a relatively large number of people on daily basis. When it comes to the formation of relationships, there is a greater choice of potential partners and fewer restrictions.
Geographical and social mobility and partner choice? (Collectivist)
Non-western cultures offer less geographical and social mobility and so individuals have less choice in whom they interact with. The available pool of potential, suitable romantic partners is therefore, considerably smaller.
Voluntary?
In western, individualist societies, people generally expect to be able to choose their own partner and the primary basis for marriage is expected to be romantic love. Parental consent it considered desirable, but by no means necessary.
Arranged?
In countries with a collectivist orientation, the criteria for selecting individuals to be joined as couple include family alliances, economic arrangement between families and health.
Jankowiak and Fisher (1992)- Universality of love?
Investigated 166 hunting and gathering societies and found clear evidence of passionate, romantic love in most of the societies they studied. In only one society was there no compelling evidence of romantic love.
Sprecher et al. (1994)- Cultural relationships?
Wanted to find out whether people from different cultures would marry somebody who had all the qualities they desired, but whom they did not love.
They asked 1667 students from America, Japan and Russia.
The Japanese (87%) and Americans (89%) expressed a high reluctance to marry in the absence of love.
Russian students were more practical and 59% were more likely to settle for a loveless marriage.
Levine et al. (1995)- Cultural relationships?
Investigating love as a basis for marriage in 11 countries. Again, the US respondents recorded the highest figure when asked whether they would refuse to marry someone they did not love (86%), whereas the figures for students from traditional, collectivist cultures such as india (24%) and Thailand (34%) .
Individualism vs Collectivism?
Questions have been raised as to useful this distinction is. Li et al. found very few differences in the attitudes of people from Canada and China, but it did show differences between the Chinese and Indian sample.
An evolutionary perspective on romantic relationships? (Pinker)
Suggests that love is a species-species adaption that has evolved to promote survival and reproduction among human beings.
Being in a long term committed relationship is associated with lower mortality rates, increased happiness and decreases levels of stress.
Cultural bias in relationships?
Methodology that behaves in a specified way in one culture and one culture only, creates a cultural bias that may invalidate any conclusions from a cross-cultural study. Measures of 'love' and 'satisfaction' developed in western cultures may not be valid in other cultures.
Reductionist in relationships?
Bartels and Zeki who claim to have discovered a 'functionally specialised system' that lights up diming FMRI scans of the brain of people in love. This takes an evolutionary approach, which can be considered reductionist as it could be oversimplifying love to an evolved adaption.