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;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Evolutionary explanations |
Buss- women prefer resources men prefer youth Aim to leave more descendants Intersexual selection- one sex evolves preferences Intrasexual selection- competition between one sex |
|
|
Evaluation of evolutionary explanations |
Buller- only looked at women in universities who would expect someone to achieve Bernstein- women valued resources when they have less educational opportunities Buss- evidence from real marriages Nettle and Clegg- peacocks tail, creativity is a result of sexual selection |
|
|
Physical attractiveness |
Walster and Walster- matching hypothesis More likely to pass on genes if you are the same social desirability Key study didn't support. Dance at a university people responded better to attractive dates |
|
|
Evaluation of physical attractiveness |
Sprecher and Hatfield- Complex matching- lack of evidence because unattractiveness is made up by resources Meltzer- correlation between attractiveness and husband satisfaction Meltzer- pressure to look good and healthy Taylor- matching not important for initial attraction on online dating |
|
|
Self disclosure |
Jourard- revealing personal information Sprecher- reciprocal disclosure leads to more liking Derlega and Grzelak- breadth and depth |
|
|
Evaluation of self disclosure |
Miller and Collins- meta analysis supporting self disclosure and liking Cooper and Sportolari- boom and bust with online relationships due to lack of trust Knop- self disclosure in real life is better because of verbal cues Tal-Or and Hershman shitrit- reality TV shows people like gradual disclosure Cultural differences- Nakanishi- Japan women prefer less personal siclosure |
|
|
Filter theory |
Kerckhoff and Davis- narrow down field of availables. Key study- 18 months similarity. Over 18 months was complementarity Social demography Similarity of attitudes Complementarity of needs |
|
|
Evaluation of filter theory |
Levinger- failed to replicate Duck- real value of filter theory Thornton and Young Demarco- values change Tidwell- perceived similarity more important |
|
|
Social exchange theory |
Thibaut and Kelley- comparison of what you get out compared to what you put in Kurdek and Schmitt- greater satisfaction with many benefits and lack of alternatives Costs vs benefits Comparison level Comparison level of alternatives |
|
|
Evaluation of social exchange theory |
Sprecher- evidence for alternatives effecting satisfaction Cost may be a benefit for another person Ignores rationality as some people can cope with more costs to help someone Nakonezny and Denton- can't quantify costs so can't apply to personal relationships Gottman and Levenson- IBCT to help couples |
|
|
Equity theory |
Hatfield- what they get out it roughly equal to what they put in Stafford and Canary- satisfaction high in equity and men do less sharing tasks when unequal |
|
|
Evaluation of equity theory |
Huesman- people have different sensitivities to equity DeMaris- gender differences as women feel under benefited Aumer ryan- cultural differences equity was important in all cultures but Jamaicans were less equitable Brosnan and DeWaal- support from primates monkeys angry when denied grapes Clark- problem of causality. People don't think in terms of equity only when there is something wrong |
|
|
Investment model |
Rusbult- explanation of relationship stability that explains commitment in terms of factors Investments Satisfaction Alternatives Le and Agnew- factors were correlated with commitment and stay or leave behaviours |
|
|
Evaluation of investment model |
Rusbult- difficulty in measuring variables as it uses self report Cultural support- model true in US and Taiwan Goodfriend and Agnew- future investments need to be considered Rusbult and Martz- explanation of why people stay in abusive relationships |
|
|
Relationship breakdown |
Duck Breakdown Intrapsychic Dyadic Social Grave dressing |
|
|
Evaluation of relationship breakdown |
Duck and Rollie- resurrection stage learn from mistakes Impact of social phase is different in different stages of the relationship Monroe- relationship breakdown and depression so grave dressing can help Social stage to help save relationships Ethical issues in research |
|
|
Virtual relationships |
Jourard- self disclosure easier online as there is more control. Reduces risk of disapproval Rubin- disclosing to people in anonymous situations was met be reciprocal disclosures Zhao- social networks empower gated individuals |
|
|
Evaluation of virtual relationships |
Rosenfeld and Thomas- people with internet more likely to have a partner 71.8% Online relationships are not weak Tamir and Mitchell- biological support for why people disclose. Increased MRI activity in pleasure centres Oswald- social networks help shy people to make friends Zhao- increases self image |
|
|
Parasocial relationships- attachment theory |
One sided where the other person is unaware Weiss- attachment theory Proximity seeking Secure base Protest at disruption Cole and Leets- ambivalent for intimacy |
|
|
Parasocial relationships- absorption addiction |
Giles and Matby- Entertainment social Intense personal Borderline pathological Lange- introverted and few relationships leads to being absorbed into someones life. stronger involvement is required for the addictive feelings |
|
|
Evaluation of Parasocial relationships |
Schiappa- people with PSR watch more Tv and have more similarities Schmid and Klimmit- Harry Potter different cultures Germany and Mexico both felt attached Eyal and Cohen- level of loneliness with PSR breakup Maltby- PSR linked to mental health intense personal linked to neuroticism Cohne- negative emotions with a PSR breakup the same as with IRL breakup |
