• 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

1/49

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;

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