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;
54 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is sexual selection? |
-natural selection arising through preference by one sex for certain characteristics inindividuals of the other sex. |
|
|
What is anisogamy? |
-difference in male and female sex cells (gametes) - sperm is v small, highly mobile and have vasts amount of it - contrast, ovaries are large, static and limited no. of fertile yrs- huge investment of energy required - consequence- no shortage of fertile males but a fertile women is a rare 'resource'- this causes mating strategies |
|
|
What is inter-sexual selection? |
-Preferredmating strategy for the female – ‘quality over quantity’ means females arechoosier and look for resources because consequences of a bad choice are morecritical for her. -Sexysons hypothesis – female preference for a genetically ‘fit’ male ensures thatdesirable characteristics (e.g. height) are inherited by male offspring and propagated. - Runaway process - evolution good traits e.g. height are carried through generations |
|
|
What is intra-sexual selection? |
-Preferredmating strategy of the male – ‘quantity over quality’ means males compete to mate with as many females as possible, driving physical and psychological differences between males and females this is called dimorphism for example males - physical competition between size - large you are more chance of mating whereas females do not compete for reproductive rights -Males are sensitive to indicators of youth and fertility in females because this suits their optimum mating strategy. This is because it takes no energy to produce sperm and we have enough sperm to fertilise every women in the world |
|
|
Evaluate Sexual selection |
STRENGTHS Research support for anisogamy - Buss - carried out a survey for over 10,000 adults in 33 countries - he asked Qs about age and a variety of attributes - he found females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics whereas males placed greater value on reproductive capacity - thus these findings demonstrate sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy Research support inter-sexual selection - Clark and Hatfield - male and female where sent to uni campus and asked " i have been noticing you around campus, i find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?" - 100% females said no - 75% males said yes - supports it has states females are more choosier than men when it comes to selection Support from waist-hip research -male will show a greater preference for a female body shape that signals fertility - Singh studied this in terms of WHR- was it hip ratio - preference isn't body shape but Was it to hip size - find attractive if ratio is around 0.7 -wide hips and narrow waist good as shows honest and fertile Weaknesses Ignore social and cultural influences - women greater role in the workplace means they are not so dependent on men financially now and Bereczkei argues that this social change has consequences for mate preference - thus mate preferences are a result of social influences which the theory fails to predict |
|
|
what is self-disclosure ? |
-Reveals our feelings, attitudes, beliefs, memories, etc., to our partner so they understand us better. |
|
|
What is the social penetration theory? |
- Altman and Taylor: self-disclosure reveals one’s inner self and displays trust in the other person, so romantic partners ‘penetrate’ into each other’s lives more deeply. |
|
|
What is the breadth and depth of self-disclosure? |
- as both increases romantic partners become more committed to each other e.g Metaphor of an onion pealing away start of closed then open more -Breadth of disclosure is narrow as at start of relationship many things are off limits.IF we were too give too much out early on 'too much info' it could ruin chance of relationship - as relationship increases self-disclosure gets deeper |
|
|
Reciprocity of self-discolure |
Turn-taking - Needs to be reciprocal disclosure for relationship to develop. - Once individual decides to disclose hopefully their partner will respond in a way that is rewarding: elements of understanding, empathy & also disclose intimate thoughts & feelings. - There needs to be a balance of disclosure for successful romantic relationship = increases feelings of intimacy and deepens relationship. |
|
|
Evaluate self-disclosure |
Strengths Research support Sprecher and Hendrick - studied heterosexual couples and found several strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure - in conc men and women who used self-disclosure and those who believe in their partners were more happy in the relationship Real life app Hass and Stafford - found 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest self-disclosure was the way they maintained their relationship - for example those partners who have small talk and don't really speak could use self-disclosure to help benefit their relationship such as deepening relationship - this theory demonstrates the insight to psychological values Weaknesses
Cultural differences - increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosure will not always deepen relationships in every culture . -A study concluded tha men and women in the USA (individualistic) self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (collectivist) . -This suggests that the importance of self-disclosure as an aspect of attraction is moderated by the influence of culture. - theory is thus limited Correlation vs causation - much research is correlational - although it usually assumes that greater self-disclosure = greater satisfaction where a correlation can't tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw |
|
|
What is physical attractiveness |
- A factor of an individual we notice as soon as we meet them. |
|
|
Outline the importance of physical attraction in a relationship |
- Symmetrical faces are considered attractive by many people, perhaps because symmetry is an honest signal of genetic fitness. - Neotenous (‘baby-like’) features in females (e.g. small nose, big eyes) are also rated as attractive perhaps because they trigger a caring instinct. - Important at start of relationship and also of continuing importance McNulty et al |
|
|
Explain the halo effect |
- People who are considered physically attractive are usually assumed to have other desirable characteristics too, such as honesty and friendliness – ‘what is beautiful is good’. |
|
|
Explain the matching hypothesis |
- Made by Walster - Individuals tend to seek partners of similar levels of attractiveness. - We have to make a realistic judgement about our own 'value' to a potential partner. - Our choice of partner is a compromise. - We wish to avoid being rejected by someone 'out of our league' - someone who is very unlikely to consider us attractive. - By opting for partners of similar social desirability, we can maximise chances of successful outcomes. |
|
|
Evaluate physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction a relationship |
Strengths Research support for halo effect Palmer and Peterson - found that people who were more physically attractive were found as more politically knowledgable than attractive people - Halo effect so powerful that even when people knew they had no 'expertise' it still persisted - this has huge political application where people can be given the job just because they look attractive -applies in many other aspects of life and is a valid explanation
Research for matching hypothesis Feingold - carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between partners - good support as it looks at real romantic partners thus reliable Weaknesses Individual differences - some people don't attach because of physically attraction - e,g Towhey asked ppts who they would want to target from a set of photos based on their photo and some biographical info - Ppts also completed a questionnaire - MACHO scale designed to measure sexist attitudes - Towhey found that the higher on scale the more you judge someone on physical attraction, low scorers less sensitive to this - thus physical attraction not always only factor Research contradicting matching hypothesis Taylor et al - studied online dating sites - measured date choices not merely preferences - online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more PA than them - where it seemed people didn't consider their own PA when making dates |
|
|
What is the filter theory? |
- All the romantic partners potentially available to us are reduced by a series of filters to a limited collection of people we would like to form a relationship with. |
|
|
What are the three stages of the filter theory? |
1) social demography 2) similarity in attitudes 3) complementarity Kerchoff and Davis |
|
|
Explain the first stage of the filter theory |
-Social demography including physical proximity, social class, ethnic group, age, education level. - Leads to homogamy, that is forming relationships with people who are socially and culturally similar to ourselves - We find them more attractive because we have more in common. - In 1st filtering stage, attraction has more to do w/ social rather than individual characteristics. |
|
|
Explain the second stage of the filter theory |
- Similarity in attitudes important, especially early in a relationship when such similarities encourage deeper self-disclosures - Through disclosures individuals weigh up decisions about whether to continue or terminate a relationship. - Partners who are very different (in attitudes) aren't considered suitable so are 'filtered out' from field of possible long-term partners. |
|
|
Explain the third stage of the filter theory |
- Complementarity, meeting each other’s needs becomes more important later in a relationship. - People who have different needs like each other b/c they provide each other w/ mutual satisfaction of these opposed needs. - e.g someone caring vs. someone needing to be cared for -need for complementarity was more important for long-term couples. |
|
|
Evaluate the filter theory |
Strengths Research support -Winch found evidence that similarities of personality, interests & attitudes between partners are typical of early stages. - Theory has face validity - echoes the Matching hypothesis the more similarities the longer it will last Weaknesses Failure to replicate - The theory is not universally supported. - Levinger et al failed to replicate findings of Kerckhoff & Davis study. - 330 'steadily attached' couples went through the same process. - No evidence that either similarity of attitudes & complementarity of need influenced progress towards permanence. - No significant correlation between length of couple's relationship & influence of these different variables. Lacks temporal validity - People in today's society can easily meet partner outside usual demographic limits. - Rise of online dating has changed the process of beginning a romantic relationship & reduced the importance of some social demographic variables. Direction of cause and effect - filter theory states partners come together as they are initially attracted to each other - evidence that this direction of causality is wrong - Anderson- longitudinal study found that partners become more similar over time - called emotional convergence - these findings not predicted by FT |
|
|
What is Social Exchange Theory? |
A theory of how relationships form and develop. It assumes that romantic partners act out of self interest when exchanging rewards and costs. A satisfying and committed relationship occurs when rewards exceed costs |
|
|
Describe rewards costs and profits in a relationship |
- We behave in relationships in line with the minimax principle: maximise rewards (love, companionship, pleasure) and minimise costs (time, stress, compromise); a relationship is profitable if the rewards exceed the costs. |
|
|
What is it meant by comparison level? |
-The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get from the relationship, influenced by previous experience and social norms e.g. from the media - through time we get into more relationships thus gather more data so our CL changes - we consider a relationship if our CL is high e.g people with low self esteem will be happy with small profits and visa versa |
|
|
What is it meant by comparison level for alternatives? |
-the fact of that could I get greater rewards and fewer costs elsewhere? -We stay in the relationship if we believe it is more rewarding than the alternatives. - CLat dependent on our current relationship status |
|
|
What are the stages of relationship development |
Sampling: we experiment with rewards and costs in our relationships. Bargaining: we negotiate rewards and costs at the start of a relationship. Commitment: rewards increase and costs lessen so the relationship stabilises. Institutionalisation: normative rewards and costs are well established |
|
|
Evaluate the social exchange theory |
Weaknesses Direction of cause and effect -SET argues that dissatisfaction occurs when costs outweigh rewards - Argyle points out we don't measure costs and rewards or look at better alternatives until dissatisfied - Research shows dissatisfaction comes first. Miller found that ppt who rated themselves a highly committed spent less time looking at alternatives - Therefore people in committed relationships don't look at alternatives and SET cannot explain this SET ignores equity - comparison level ignores the factor that there may be an overwhelming consideration for partners- fairness/equity - equity theory pushes on this - equity more important than the balance between costs and rewards thus limited exp Measuring SET concepts - factors hard to quantify - psychological costs and rewards hare v hard to define especially as they vary different between everyone Artificial research - most studies on SET use an artificial stimuli e,g one common procedure is 2 people work together on a game playing scenario in which costs and rewards are distributed- where the 2 people know nothing about one another and their 'relationship depends on task given. -Low valid- theory |
|
|
What's the equity theory? |
- economic theory in how relationships develop. It acknowledges the impacts of rewards and costs but criticises the SET as it doesn't include equity where the distribution of both is fair |
|
|
Explain the role of equity |
- Equity means ‘fairness’ – both partners’ profit in a relationship (rewards minus costs) should be roughly the same. -Lack of equity means one partner overbenefits and the other underbenefits, which leads to dissatisfaction. |
|
|
discuss equity and equality within a relationship? |
- Rewards and costs do not have to be the same for both partners; a partner who puts a lot into the relationship will be satisfied if they also get a lot out of it. |
|
|
What are the 2 consequences of inequity in a relationship ? |
- equity predicts there is a strong correlation between the greater the inequity the greater the dissatisfaction perceived 1) Changes in perceived equity -Greatest dissatisfaction comes from changes in perceived inequity as a relationship develops. 2) Dealing with inequity -Underbenefitting partners either work hard to restore equity or they lower their standards so the relationship feels equitable even though nothing has changed. |
|
|
Evaluate the equity theory |
Strengths Support research -Utne -real life app = more valid than SET -survey 118 recently married couples measuring equity with 2 self-report scales -researchers found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than them who saw themselves as over or under benefitting Weaknesses Cultural influences -Aumer-ryan et al - found cultural difference between equity and satisfaction - researcher compared couples in a collectivist culture compared to an individualist culture - collectivist - more satisfied when equitable - individualist- more satisfied when overbenefitting - limited a theory isn't universal Individual differences -Huseman - people are less sensitive to equity than others - some relationships are benevolent - give more than they expect back -some entitleds- believe they should get overbenefitted and don't feel guilty -differences within relationships Contradictory evidence ` - Berg and McQuinn - equity didn't increase in their longitudinal study of dating couples like the theory suggests |
|
|
What are 3 the key aspects of the investment model? |
1) Satisfaction 2) Comparison w alternatives 3) Investment |
|
|
What is a satisfying relationship ? |
- Relationship has many rewards and few costs (i.e. profitable). - Relationship compares favourably with possible alternatives. |
|
|
What is comparison with alternatives (investment) |
a judgement that partners make concerning whether a relationship with a different partner would bring more rewards and fewer costs |
|
|
Define investment |
the resources associated with a romantic relationship which the partners would lose if the relationship were to end |
|
|
Explain the different types of investment |
1) Intrinsic - resources we put directly into a relationship (tangibles such as money and intangibles such as energy) 2) Extrinsic- resources that previously didn't exist in a relationship but now do (tangibles such as mutual friends and intangibles such as shared memories) Thus we predict if theres high satisfaction, alternatives are less attractive and size of investment increasing the relationship will have commitment |
|
|
What is commitment ? |
Commitment is the main psychological factor that maintains relationships; it is, not satisfaction – partners are committed because they have made an investment. |
|
|
What are the relationship maintenance mechanisms? |
Commitment is expressed through these mechanisms 1) Accommodation- promote the relationship 2) Willingness to sacrifice- putting partners interests first 3) Forgiveness- forgiven for any transgressions 4) Postive illusions- unrealistically positive 5) Ridiculing alternatives- negative about alternatives and other peoples relationship |
|
|
Evaluate Rusbult's Investment model |
Strengths Supporting evidence -Le & Agnew - Meta analysis- 52 studies , 1100 ppts from 5 countries - found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment - these findings were found to be universal over all countries and hetero and homo sexual relationships thus high validity Explain abusive relationships -Rusbult and Martz - found that 'battered' females most likely to return to an abusive partner as they were the most committed thus having the greatest investment and having the fewest attractive alternatives - thus model recognises satisfaction isn't needed to stay in a relationship Methodological strengths - model relies on self-report techniques such as questionnaires and interviews - appropriate methods as its the individuals partners perception that matters the most - your belief that you have made a big investment in your current or your belief that you have no other alternatives thus reliable methods Weaknesses Oversimplifies Investment -Goodfriend and Agnew - more to investment than the resource you have put in already - v few investments made at beginning of relationship where it is the future plans where the real investment happens - theory limited exp as it doesn't account the true complexity of investment how in future needs commitment |
|
|
What is the Phase model? |
Theory that states breakdown is not a one-off event but distinct phases. |
|
|
What are the 4 different stages ? |
1) Intra-psychic stage 2) Dyadic phase 3) Social phase 4) Grave-dressing phase |
|
|
Explain the 4 different stages |
1) Intra-psychic stage -The dissatisfied partner thinks about the reasons why they are unhappy, weighing up the pros and cons of ending or continuing the relationship. 2) Dyadic phase -Partners discuss the state of their relationship, airing their dissatisfactions in an atmosphere of hostility and resentment. 3) Social phase -The breakup is made public and there is a period of forming pacts and alliances in which mutual friends are expected to take sides. 4) Grave-dressing phase -The relationship is dead and the priority now is for the former partners to ‘spin’ their version of the breakdown for public consumption. |
|
|
Evaluate Ducks phase model |
Strengths Real-life app - helps us understand stages of relationship and how to reverse it - recognises different repair strategies are better at some stages than others e.g. feature of dyadic phase is communication attempt to improve this could save the relationship - this could be used in counselling- real life app Weaknesses Incomplete model - Rollie and Duck oversimplified should be a 5th stage-resurrection phase- ex-parters use their previous relationship experience for the future - They also say movement from stage 1 to 2 isn't inevitable and is possible to return to an earlier point - processes occur in breakdown sell e.g gossip its not always linear - limited exp doesn't consider the dynamic nature of a break up Methodological issues -most research done is retrospective - most people who recall they are normally asked a bit after the break up has happened ad thus recall can be distorted - this is done as if they ask for recall the beginning it could make things worse - thus no research is done in the early stages therefore it is an incomplete description of how a relationship ends Cultural bias -model is based around western cultures e.g USA - Moghaddam et al - relationships in individualistic cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end e.g divorce - hard to say the model is universal |
|
|
What are the 2 theories in self-discolsrue of virtual relationship |
1) Reduced cues theory 2)Hyperpersonal theory |
|
|
Explain the 2 theories of self-disclosure of virtual relationships |
1) Reduced cues theory - Sproull and Kiesler -CMC relationships less effective than FtF ones as we lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions -CMC particularly lack cues to our emotional state such as our facial expressions - Without some of these cues leads to de-individuation- reduces people individual identity - encourages disinhibition - more likely involve blunt and aggressive communication - cause a reluctance to disclose 2) Hyperpersonal theory - Walther- Online relationships more personal and involve greater disclosure than FtF ones because on CMC relationships can develop quickly as disclosure happens earlier, once established = more intense - key feature of self-disclosure in VR is that sender has more time to manipulate own image -Walther calls this selective self-presentation - Intimacy is promoted in CMC relationships by self-presenting in a positive and idealised way - anonymity is another aspect that promotes self disclosure and makes relationships is anonymity - Bargh- strangers on train effect for FtF relationships when aware others don't know your identity you feel less accountable and thus disclose more |
|
|
Explain absence gating in a virtual relationship |
-gate- obstacle in the way of a relationship- FtF relationship gated for reasons such as physical unattractiveness , social anxiety - McKenna & Bargh- There are fewer obstacles (‘gates’) in a CMC relationship because physical and social factors are less influential online thus self-disclosure becomes deeper -Therefore attention is focused on self-disclosure (i.e. what people say).- more interested - VR can cause people to make other identities such as man can be a women etc |
|
|
Evaluate the virtual relationship explanation |
Strengths Research support for Hyperpersonal theory -Whitty and Joinson - e.g Qs asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate which is quite different to FtF conversations which are often small talk, direct and to the point - thus theory supported as the way we self-disclose in CMC exaggerates ourselves and aids relationship Research support for absence of gating -McKenna and Bargh - looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people - found that these people were able to express their 'true selves' more than FtF - 70% of these relationships formed lasted 2 years more than relationships formed in real life Weaknesses Lack of support for reduced cues theory - Walther and Tidwell - non-verbal cues are different rather than absent in CMC such as style and timing of their messages e.g taking time to respond more intimate than immediate reply - use of emojis for facial expressions - success of online communication is hard for reduced cues to explain as shows CMC are just as personal and are able to express emotions Relationships are multimodal - Walther -theories explaining CMC need to acknowledge that relationships are conducted both online and offline through many different medias - not straightforward -what we disclose in our online relationship will inevitably be influenced by office interactions - visa versa |
|
|
What is Parasocial relationship ? |
one-sided relationships, where oneperson expends considerable emotional energy, interest and time, although theother person is unaware of their existence e.g celebrity |
|
|
What are the three levels of parasocial relationships ? |
Maltby et al used the Celebrity Attitude Scale - establishes levels: 1) Entertainment- social - least intense. Celebrities are viewed as sources of entertainment and social interaction. e,g discuss stories about Eastenders in OK magazine 2)Intense-personal: - intermediate. Fan might have frequent thoughts about and intense feelings for a celebrity e.g considering them as a soul mate 3) Borderline pathological: -strongest level. Fan has uncontrollable fantasies about a celebrity and engages in extreme behaviours. e.g i would kill for you |
|
|
What is the absorption-addiction model? |
-McCutcheon explains the tendency to form parasocial relationships in terms of deficiencies people have in their own lives e.g lack self-identity - these relationships allows an scape from reality and people who start in entertainment social stage can be triggered to more intense stages |
|
|
What is absorption and addiction |
Absorption - Seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus their attention as far as possible on the celebrity - become pre-occupied in their existence and identity w them Addiction - individual needs to sustain their commitment in the relationship by feeling a stronger and closer involvement w the celebrity - leads to extreme behaviour and delusional thinking e.g stalking |
|
|
Explain the attachment theory explanation |
-People who had an insecure-resistant attachment in childhood are more likely to form a parasocial relationship to meet unfulfilled needs without rejection. - insecure-avoidant prefer to avoid the pain and rejection of relationships altogether |
|
|
Evaluate parasocial relationships |
Strengths Support for absorption-addiction model - Maltby - looked at females aged 14-16 who had parasocial relationship a female whose body shape they admired - found these females had a poor body image-they speculated this could be a precursor to the development of anorexia - real life app- predictive validity Cultural influences - many people world-wide form a parasocial relationship with harry potter who is completely fictional - Schmid and Klimmt report this is not culturally specific, using an online Q methodology they found similar levels of attachment to Potter in individualist culture (germany) and Collectivist (Mexico) Weaknesses Problems w attachment theory - McCutcheon - found no relationship between insecure attachment and the tendency to PSR w celebs - those with insecure attachment types were more likely to start thinking stalking was acceptable - thus not valid explanation Methodological issues - self report method to collect data e.g online Questionnaires - bias for findings e.g. ppts may respond to qs to enhance social status (social desirability bias) - issue of cause and effect as correlational analysis can't conclude intense-personal causes young women to have poor body image - absorption addiction model is based on these studies - Qs validity of explanation |
