relationships

What is anisogamy

Differences in sexual selection strategies arising due to different selective pressures

difference between make and female sex cells

What is intrasexual selection

Male preferred strategy

Members of one sex compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex

Whatever traits lead to successful mating in these contests will be passed on to the next generation

Males are more attracted to mates who are young and fertile

Intersexual selection

The preferences for certain traits in the opposite sex - female strategy

Preferences determine the areas in which the opposite sex must compete becoming signals they are likely to have good genes

Buss study (evolutionary explanations)

Study involving 10,000 people from 37 diverse cultures

Asking if they support different hypothesis the findings suggest women are looking for rich men and men are looking for young women supporting evolutionary theory

Ao3 intersexual selection ( evolutionary explanations)

Clark and Hatfield study - would you have sex with me study

Supports the idea women are picky as they want successful offspring and look for specific traits but men are more focused on spreading their genes

I/D - biological reductionism- ignores any other factors that influence mate choice

Factors affecting relationships - self disclosure

What is self disclosure

The process of deliberately revealing significant information about yourself usually not known by others that can be low risk or high risk

Social penetration theory

Reciprocal exchange of information

Increased intimacy = penetration of understanding

Feature of romantic relationships

Breadth and depth of self disclosure

Breadth- narrow as many topics are off limits early in a relationship but eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate high risk information

Reciprocity and self disclosure

For a relationship to develop there needs to be reciprocal exchange of information Increased intimacy

Once you disclose your partner will hopefully respond in a rewarding way

This creates a balance of self disclosure which increases feelings of intimacy and deepening the relationship

Eval of self disclosure

Spreecher Et Al- turn taking self disclosure reciprocity in the acquaintance process increases the likelihood of positive outcomes

Real world application- romantic partners probably use self disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy, Hass and Stafford found 57% of gay men and women said open and honest self disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationship

I/D- cultural differences- type of self disclosure can differ due to culture, in USA more sexual thoughts and feelings are disclosed compared to collectivist cultures like china

Theory also limited as it’s based on findings from western cultures so can’t be generalised

The halo effect

Dion- physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind and successful compared to unattractive people

Matching hypothesis

We pick a partner of equal attractiveness or value, choosing the best we are able to get

A person rates a potential partner and compares it with themselves and chooses them if they match their level

Looks can be balanced out by social status

Research support for matching hypothesis

Walster computer dance study - pps attended a dance and were told they would be partnered with someone based on their attractiveness and filled out a questionnaire and were matched with someone with similar answers but had actually been randomly allocated, at the end of the dance, they were asked to rate the attractiveness of their partner and found regardless of pps own attractiveness they preferred more attractive partners

Reduces the validity of matching hypothesis theory

Evaluation of physical attractiveness

Individual differences - some people are more influenced by physical attractiveness than others

Towhey 1979- gave males and females a set of photos and biographical information about people and asked them to judge how much they would like a person based on their photo

I/D- nomothetic as it seems to be a cultural universal

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships

Filter theory

Field of available- everyone who potentially could form a relationship

Field of desirable- people who share similar attitudes, values and interests

1st level - social demography (proximity and physical attractiveness) - most people form a relationship with people close to them mainly due to chance they will meet, how good looking someone is, is one of the most important factors in initial relationship formation

2nd level- similarity in attitudes(similarity) - most people come into contact with people from the same social or cultural background which can also be the case for internal characteristics eg attitudes

3rd level- complimentary of needs( complement of needs and competence)- we are often attracted to people who give us what we lack, how intelligent and competent someone is can be influential in how attractive they are

Ao3 filter theory

Support- kerchoff and Davies- used 94 students comparing long and short term relationships using self report questionnaires looking at shared values and needs of complementarity then asked again 7 months later and found similarity in attitudes was most important in short term couples and complementing each others needs was most important for long term couples

I/D temporal validity- the role of filters has changed over time

I/D reductionist- too simplistic to suggest complementary is vital for long term relationship success, also no differentiation between actual and perceived similarity

Too simple to suggest cause and effect

Theories of romantic relationships Filter

Social exchange theory

Rewards costs and profits - we wish to maximise rewards and minimise costs to achieve profits in a relationship and we will maintain the relationship if in a profit

Comparison level- people’s expectations about the level of rewards snd punishments they are likely to receive in a relationship

Comparison level for alternatives - people’s expectations about the level of rewards and punishments they would receive in an alternative relationship

4 stages of relationship development

1 sampling- we consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships

2 bargaining- we give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile

3 commitment- the relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from other such lowers costs

4 institutionalisation- relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner

Ao3 social exchange theory

I/D - reductionist- assumes that all relationships are economic in nature and one argument is romantic partners don’t keep scores because if they did it would undermine trust

It would be better to take a more holistic approach eg partner rewards

Direction of cause and effect- assumes dissatisfaction arises when a relationship isn’t profitable or do we consider others when we are satisfied then become dissatisfied

Vague concepts- SET deals in concepts that are vague and hard to quantify, real world rewards are subjective and hard to define and it’s also unclear how a comparison level works

Equity theory (walster)

Role of equity- maximising rewards and minimising costs are important but SET fails to take into account the need most people have to equity in a relationship - about fairness and both partners profit

Equity and equality- inequity has potential to cause distress when you give and don’t receive so satisfaction is baout perceived fairness

Consequences of inequity- breakup or deal with the inequity - restore actual equity or restore perceived equity

Ao3 of equity theory

Support- Stafford and canary - self report of over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction , findings revealed satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationship to be equitable

I/D cultural limitations - suggests such economic theories only apply to western relationships and even then, only to a certain short term relationship among individuals with high mobility, western society students are typically very mobile and experience many short term relationships so use indigenous research instead

I/D- individual differences- not all partners in a romantic relationship are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman 1987 suggests some people are less sensitive to equity than others (benevolent and entitieds)

Theories of romantic relationships - rusbults investment model

Sastisfaction

Alternatives ————> Commitment level ————> future stay or leave decision

Investments Relationship maintenance mechanisms

satisfaction - we form a standard we compare against, perception of what you are gaining from your current relationship based on all our experiences

Comparison with alternatives - could you have more than you have now- could you do better

Investment,( intrinsic and extrinsic) - anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it

Intrinsic investment- any resources out directly into a relationship eg emotions money

Extrinsic investment- resources that didn’t feature before, but are now closely associated with the relationship eg mutual friends, memories

Satisfaction v commitment- the main psychological factors that cause people to stay in a relationship is not satisfaction but commitment which can help explain why dissatisfied people stay in relationships

Relationship maintenance mechanisms- willingness to sacrifice, accommodation, forgiveness, positive illusions, ridiculing alternatives

Ao3 of investment model

Explains abusive relationships- when applied the investment model to an abusive relationship asking women why they had stayed in an abusive relationship, as predicted by model, women felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great- time and effort were the most important investments

Oversimplifies investment- there is more to investment than the resources you have put in, investments can be made for future plans, the model fails to recognise the true complexity of investment

I/D- nomothetic- general laws that can apply to everyone, so make it idiographic then it can be applied to individuals

Ducks phase model of relationship break down

The intrapsychic phase- thinking about problems in the relationship but not speaking out

A cognitive process occurring within an individual, the dissatisfied partner worries about reasons for their dissatisfaction and may share with a trusted friend —> self assessment of relationship

The dyadic phase- confronting partner and trying to sort things out, self disclosure with partner, have to talk about satisfaction/ dissatisfaction in the relationship

The social phase- decision to leave is made and discussed publicly to gain assistance and they give input

Discussing publicly with family or friends, relationship termination and dissatisfaction = breakup

Grave dressing phase- your own version of breakup and the causes of it

Giving reasons for breakup, reassess comparison levels

Ao3- ducks investment model

Life application- explains how couples stay together even if they have doubts as breakdown isn’t inevitable, doesn’t explain why, just says it does

I/D culture bias- based on research in individualistic cultures, relationships In some collectivist cultures are less easy to end

Virtual relationships in social media

Paralanguage- non verbal communication eg body posture, eye gazing, on the phone there are still paralanguage signals eg pauses and tone of voice

Self disclosure- revealing previously unknown info about yourself not normally known by others, used to form a relationship

Reduced cues- virtual relationships are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in face to face interactions, without some cues this could lead to deindividuation, virtual relationships are more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication, you are unlikely to want to initiate a relationship with someone who is impersonal, or reveal your innermost feelings to them

Absence of gating- an obstacle to the formation of a relationship, ftf interaction is said to be gated because it involves many features that can interfere with early development of a relationship eg physical unattractiveness

Ao3 of virtual relationships

Lack of support for reduced cues theory- online cues not absent but from ftf acronyms and emojis effective substitutes, thus reduces the usefulness of the theories of self disclosure and virtual relationships

I/D - nomothetic- both nomothetic theories so they are generalised to the whole population so you can predict general behaviour, but it doesn’t take into account individual differences , would be more useful if it was idiographic

Parasocial relationships - target individual is unaware of existence of person who created relationship

Entertainment social- celebrity is a source of gossip or interaction

Intense personal- intense, compulsive feelings towards celebrity

Borderline pathological- uncontrollable behaviours/ fantasies

Absorption addiction model (parasocial relationships)

Parasocial relationships may form due to lack of real relationships

Explains Parasocial relationships in terms of life deficiencies and as a way of escaping mundane lives, you become absorbed in a celebrities existence and then need to increase your dose of involvement to gain satisfaction

Attachment theory explains - theory proposes insecure attachment leads to an increased interest in celebrities , Parasocial relationships make no demands, or risk of rejection

Secure base - provides a sense of security allowing safe base

Protest at disruption- presence of prolonged distress following separation or loss

Ao3 of Parasocial relationships

Cross cultural support- attachment theory can explain why people all over the world have a desire to form Parasocial relationships, this increases usefulness as culturally universal

I/D- methodological issues- the research uses correlational analysis- studies do not show causal relationships