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;
41 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Natural selection |
The strongest survive so characteristics necessary for survival are passed down |
|
|
Sexual selection |
Attractive mates are picked meaning attractive characteristics are passed down |
|
|
Intersexual selection |
One sex(typically female) chooses from prospective mates according to attractiveness |
|
|
Intrasexual selection |
Members of one sex compete for access to the other sex |
|
|
Male intrasexual selection |
Males typically compete through physical manners such as fighting |
|
|
Female intrasexual selection |
they use verbal tactics and "bitch" about other females |
|
|
Buss(1989) |
Asked people about preference in partner's characteristics and found men valued physical attrwctiveness and women valued resources. 10k participants 37 cultures |
|
|
Evaluation of sexual selection |
(-)Reductionist->SLT-> aggressive male role models
(-)Socially corrupt->based on stereotypes and insults both sexes (-)Reductionist-> Is procreation the only motivation behind relationships? (-)Non-heterosexual relationships (-)Cultural bias-> Western perspective |
|
|
Parental investment |
Investment that increases the chance of offspring survin7g7 at the edp7ens7e of7 ot7her off7spri7ng7 |
|
|
Anisogamy |
Women are selective about partners because they only have one egg per month, whereas men have 1000s of sperm |
|
|
Clark and Hetfield findings |
Confederate approached opposite sex strangers on University campus several questions with one being asking for sex. Of the participants asked, no women agreed to have sex whereas 75% of men did so |
|
|
Clark and Hetfield conclusion |
Findings suggest that parental investment has some validity as they suggest women are more choosier than men in terms of casual sex |
|
|
Self disclosure |
Sharing personal information leading to increased attraction |
|
|
Social penetration theory |
Gradual process of revealing aspects of oneself functioning on reciprocal sharing of information between two partners, and slowly disclosing more personal information as relationship progresses |
|
|
Breadth and depth |
Breadth-Low risk information shared at the start of a relationship Depth- High risk information shared later in a relationship |
|
|
Reciprocity of self disclosure |
Breadth and depth are utilised in self disclosure as there must be a reciprocal element to disclosure, as reciprocity for high risk information increases intimacy |
|
|
Factors affecting self-disclosure |
Appropriateness: Disclosing high risk information early is inappropriate Culture: Social norms influence what information should be displayed at different times Reasons for disclosure: Information must not be widely available as then it feels less intimate Gender differences: Self disclosure is more natural to women and thus more desirable, whereas for men it is unnatural and thus not desired |
|
|
Sprecher and Hendrick |
Longitudinal study of mainly white middle class heterosexual couples using questionnaires and found that men and women who self disclosed were more satisfied in the relationship than those who did not |
|
|
Self disclosure: Evaluation |
(+) Real life applications in relationship counselling which leads to more satisfying relationships (-)Culturally biased->Tang et al(2013) found that men and women in the US(individualist) self disclose far more than those in China(collectivist) -> self disclosure may be a western concept |
|
|
Halo effect |
The way in which attractive people are associated with positive characteristics as opposed to unattractive people |
|
|
Matching hypothesis |
People are likely to form a relationship with someone they believe to be similarly attractive to themself |
|
|
Murstein(1972) |
Asked real life couples to rate photos of themselves and random couples from 1-5 and found real life couples would rate each other similarly |
|
|
Matching hypothesis: evaluation |
(+) High face validity-> Many couples to appear to be similar in regards to physical attractiveness, however this is flawed as many are not so there are more factors at work (-)Taylor et al found that there was no preference for similar attractiveness through a study on dating sites but rather everyone went for attractive partners, this insinuates that people aim for someone more desirable than themselves rather than someone similarly attractive (-)Individualist bias->Matching for looks makes sense in individualist cultures where relationships may be short-term and voluntary, whereas in collectivist cultures it's for economic reasons and family alliances |
|
|
Matching hypothesis supporting evidence: Evaluation |
(-)Murstein(1972) lacks internal validity as 2d photographs are ineffective methods of demonstrating attractiveness. E.g. different camera quality |
|
|
Filter theory |
We tend to be attracted to those convenient to us dependent on certain filters |
|
|
The filters of filter theory
|
1.Social demography 2.Similarity 3.Complementarity |
|
|
Social demography |
Factors that affect whether partners meet in the first place, a stage which is primarily reliant on one's social characteristics rather than their individual traits |
|
|
Social demography traits |
Age Social background Geographic location Ethnic group |
|
|
Similarity |
This filter concerns individual characteristics related to attitudes and values that are learnt through disclosures with one another. |
|
|
Kerckhoff and Davis |
Similarity was the best predictors in whether a relationship became stable, and partners who are very different are filtered out |
|
|
Complementarity |
The final filter which assesses the complementarity of needs which typically involves partners having opposing needs so they can cater for their opposed needs creating a harmony. |
|
|
Kerckhoff and Davis(1962) |
Carried out a longitudinal study on couples at duke university in the US and asked questions concerning attitudes and values, and months later gave them a questionnaire on how close they felt. For short term couples similarity in attitudes and values was the significant predictor of future closeness, whereas for long term couples complementarity was the significant predictor. |
|
|
Filter theory: evaluation |
(+) A strength is that people can use the filtering process to figure out whether a relationship will work or not (-)Levinger et al did the same study as Kerckhoff and Davis, yet found that there was no significant relationship between the length of their relationships and the presence of the relevant variables. |
|
|
Social exchange theory |
An economic theory of relationships that focuses on how partners weigh benefits of being in a relationship against costs and evaluate whether they should stay in the relationship |
|
|
Examples of benefits |
Social status happiness emotional needs affection |
|
|
Examples of costs |
Time
energy emotional involvement money |
|
|
Comparison level |
All relationships are based on a comparison level created through experience in previous relationships |
|
|
Low comparison level
|
Created by unsatisfying relationships, and may cause even future satisfying relationships to feel unsatisfying |
|
|
High comparison level |
Created by satisfying relationships, and makes someone have high standards for future relationships causing them to leave relationships that don't reach these expectations |
|
|
Comparison level for alternatives |
An individual believing that they can get a relationship with a better outcome, and thus may consider leaving to get more benefits |
|
|
Sprecher(2001) |
Conducted a longitudinal study on couples at a US university and found that when the comparison level for alternatives was high, relationship satisfaction and commitment tended to be low |
