relationships Flashcards

Question

What is the halo effect?

Answer 1

The halo effect suggests that we have a tendency to associate highly attractive people with preconceived disproportionately positive characteristics, including personality and wealth, even though these factors may not be linked. Therefore, we are more likely to view attractive people as trustworthy, honest, successful and more sociable compared to their unattractive counterparts i.e. ‘what is beautiful is good’

Answer 2

The key to a successful relationship, according to the Matching Hypothesis, is striking a balance between the attractiveness of a mate and the realistic chances of attaining such a mate. This relies on an accurate assessment of one’s own attractiveness and ‘value’, meaning that we are more likely to have a mate who is of a similar attractiveness level to us. Such a method reduces the likelihood of rejection by a seemingly unattainable individual (in terms of attraction) and the potential disappointment of a disproportionately less attractive mate.

Answer 3

1) Social demography 2) Similarity in attitudes 3) Complementarity

Answer 4

The first filter is social demography, and describes the factors which can make potential partners attractive to us. Key to this is the idea of similarity in terms of these factors which include religion, sexuality, ethnicity, social class, educational attainment and proximity. Two people sharing similar social demographic features are more likely to find each other attractive. These form a field of availables.

Answer 5

Relationships between people of similar sociodemographic backgrounds

Answer 6

This describes basic similarities in terms of core beliefs about significant topics, such as love, sex and religion. Large dissimilarities in the attitudes expressed between two partners may cause the relationship to end, because of the incompatibility that would result in the long-term. (facilitated by self-disclosure)This filter narrows down the field of availables to the field of desirables.

Answer 7

Kerckhoff and Davis

Answer 8

Part of the social exchange theory The amount of reward you believe you deserve Based on past relationships, social and cultural norms which are often portrayed in the media Correlates with levels of self-esteem

Answer 9

Allows us to consider how our current relationship compares to other possible relationships or being single

Answer 10

1. Sampling 2. Bargaining 3. Commitment 4. Institutionalisation

Answer 11

Rewards and costs are determined through trial and error

Answer 12

As a couple become more committed, compromises are made in terms of cost and rewards. (Initiation stage)

Answer 13

Such standards of cost and rewards are known to both parties

Answer 14

These standards and expectations are well-established

Answer 15

Thibault and Kelley (1959). The Social Exchange Theory for relationship formation takes an ‘economical’ approach, viewing relationships as worthwhile based on their relative costs and benefits, with the ‘minimax’ principles suggesting that we all aim to increase our rewards and decrease our benefits. We invest time, energy and money into each relationship and so we want to ‘get our worth’. This relates to the opportunity cost, which suggests that we must choose whether to invest these resources into our current relationship, or in other opportunities.

Answer 16

Thibault and Kelley (1959)

Answer 17

Equality = Both partners receive the same rewards and costs Equity = Balance of rewards and costs is fair

Answer 18

Equity theory, unlike social exchange theory, suggests that striking a balance between the ratio of cost and reward that each individual has is the key to a successful relationship. Therefore, couples are not always looking to maximise their gains, but simply to have a ‘fair’ relationship. This is not the same as equality where this ratio, alongside levels of cost and reward, would be the same for both partners. Therefore, equity is largely a subjective perception. However, differences in these perceptions can lead to one person being overbenefitted, whilst the second is underbenefitted. This disparity causes the overbenefitted individual to feel guilty and not worthy of the other, whereas the underbenefitted individual feels envious and disappointed that their input into the relationship is not reciprocal.

Answer 19

Disatisfaction, distress and guilt. Therefore the level of dissatisfaction and is proportionate to the perceived level of inequity. This principle applies to underbenefitted and overbenefitted partner.

Answer 20

Rusbult's investment theory is an extension of the social exchange theory to explain why people stay in relationships where costs outweigh the rewards.

Answer 21

Satisfaction level Comparison with alternatives Investment size

Answer 22

Satisfaction level Comparison with alternatives

Answer 23

Intrinsic investments Extrinsic investments

Answer 24

Supporting study (Buss) - aimed to investigate gender differences in partner preferences. 10,000 people from 37 cultures. Women preferred men with good financial prospects. Men place desire on physical attractiveness and youth. Further research has suggested that there are some sexual selection pressures which have been constant in terms of evolution and in terms of modern times, such as the hip to waist ratio, as suggested by Singh (1993). If this ratio is around 0.7, then this demonstrates to potential mates that the female is fertile and able to carry children over a long period of time, with birth being easier when the female has larger hips and a narrower waist. Therefore, this suggests that some evolutionary pressures are still relevant in modern times. Overly reductionist - ignores over factors such as social norms. Contraceptives mean more sexual freedom and so anisogamy has less of an impact on partner impact strategies.

Answer 25

Cultural bias - Individualist cultures like America share more intimate and emotional feelings of a sexual nature in comparison to collectivist cultures like China where self disclosure is not as high, yet satisfaction is still maintained. There is research support for the predictions made by social penetration theory, as suggested by Laurenceau et al (2005). These researchers found that, on the basis of daily diary entries, high levels of intimacy and trust were strongly associated or correlated with high levels of self-disclosure, in married couples. This suggests that the depth and breadth of self-disclosure is strongly predictive of the intimacy and quality of romantic relationships, which again supports the validity of the social penetration theory as an indicator of relationship quality. A key methodological issue with the use of correlational studies, such as Sprecher and Hendrick (2004), is that causal conclusions cannot be made. For example, simply because there is a correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure does not necessarily mean that the former causes the latter. Correlational studies can never establish ‘cause and effect’ relationships between two variables because they may also be affected by the ‘third variable problem’. This occurs when a third, unstudied variable can affect both outcomes e.g. the age difference between each couple. Therefore, this means that correlational studies cannot be relied upon to demonstrate the mechanism of self disclosure in relation to the quality of relationships. Or maybe satisfaction leads to more self-disclosure.

Answer 26

-The halo effect and physical attractiveness may vary in its importance as a predictor of the quality of early relationships depending on the individual, as suggested by Towhey (1979). This researcher found that participants with low scores on the MAHCO scale (which measures underlying sexist beliefs about others) were less likely to be attracted to an individual as a potential partner based purely on their physical attractiveness. This suggests that physical attractiveness, from an evolutionary perspective, does not provide the same selection pressure for all individuals, and so may explain the cases of couples were one is significantly more attractive than the other. Therefore, the halo effect has a good theoretical value. This also suggests that individual differences may also be a factor that effects attraction, as some people may care more about other factors than just physical attractiveness. Although physical attraction is a relatively broad term, it is not affected extensively by cultural relativism, with both individualist and collectivist cultures finding similar features attractive). These features include large eyes, high eyebrows and sharp cheekbones, and this is applicable across both Asian and Western male respondents, as demonstrated by Wheeler and Kim (1997). Therefore, this means that although the influence of physical attractiveness varies between individuals, what is considered ‘attractive’ is relatively consistent.

Answer 27

— Filter theory may have been considered a valid explanation for relationship formation, but only before the increased use of the Internet and online dating. Such technological advances mean that our ‘field of desirables’ is further increased because we are not restricted by certain social demographics, such as proximity and social class or culture, because we have the ability to communicate with potential partners before meeting them and potentially starting a relationship. This means that filter theory may lack temporal validity because it can only explain dating phenomena which have been restricted to the era before the Internet. Nonetheless, the majority of individuals can still use the three filters outlined in the theory, and so it is not completely invalid as an explanation for relationship formation - lacks temporal validity + There is evidence to support that filter theory is an important predictor of the progression and initial development of a relationship, as suggested by Winch (1958). He found that initial similarities in beliefs and attitudes were cited as one of the main attractive features in the partners of respondents, which is in line with the predictions made by the matching hypothesis, as well as increasing the validity of filter theory as a way of narrowing the field of availables down to a field of desirables. Therefore, this suggests that even in the modern age, filter theory and the matching hypothesis are still valid explanations of relationship formation. — However, there is evidence to refute the idea that initial similarities are important in the early stages of relationship formation, as suggested by Anderson et al (2003). These researchers demonstrated the idea of emotional convergence (where over time, a couple’s emotional responses and attitudes will become more similar, and so can be considered as a type of adaptation in response to living together), whilst the ‘attitude alignment effect’ (where over time, a couple’s attitudes will become more similar) was demonstrated by David and Rusbult (2001). This means that there exist individual differences in the ways in which filter theory affects different individuals, and that the importance of initial similarities between romantic partners is not always concrete. - false direction of causality

Answer 28

— SET may be more useful as a retrospective explanation as to why relationships break down, rather than an explanation of their initial development. This is because many of the concepts in SET cannot be objectively and quantitatively measured, such as comparison levels and the comparison levels of alternatives. It is for this reason that it is difficult to establish ‘thresholds’ for each of these concepts i.e. what type and value of a discrepancy between two comparison levels is needed to trigger the breakdown of a relationship? This means that SET is a subjective theory and reflects each individual’s perception of what is ‘worthy’ in a relationship, in terms of the comparison levels. SET doesn't distinguish between the different types of relationships. For example, the interactions in exchange relationships like those between colleagues are inline with the predictions of the social exchange theory. However in communal relationships like those between romantic partners people do not keep score of rewards. — The overemphasis of SET on the role of comparison levels ignores the importance of equity - even if the benefits of a relationship exceed the costs for an individual, if this excess is not equal to that of their partner’s, then this inequity is likely to be a major cause of dissatisfaction in the relationship, even if the two partners have similar perceptions of their comparison levels. This idea has been supported by equity research, such as that conducted by Utne et al (1984).

Answer 29

However, there is evidence supporting the link between equity theory and the satisfaction or commitment in a relationship, as suggested by Utne et al. Satisfied couples (out of a sample of 118, and who’d been dating for 2 or more years before marriage) valued equity as a key component of the success of their relationship, and preferred this balance compared to one or both members being benevolents or entitleds. Therefore, this suggests that equity has greater ecological validity than SET because it can explain the quality and satisfaction associated with real-life couples, as opposed to simply being theoretical. Self-report method is prone to bias, therefore the results may not be an accurate representation of the importance of equitability in relationships, which may reduce validity. — There is evidence contradicting the idea that the idea of equity is universal across all relationships and crucial to upholding the quality of all relationships, as suggested by Huseman et al (1987). This influence varies depending on the individual and whether they are happy to disproportionately give to the relationship (‘benevolents’) or disproportionately thrive off of the relationship (‘entitleds’). In both cases, individuals do so without worry and are aware of their actions, as well as their partner’s attitudes. This means that equity is essentially a perception and is not universal across all people. (Individual differences) — It has been suggested by Clark and Mills (2011) that equity theory may be a better or more valid explanation for friendship and business/non-personal relationships, as opposed to simply romantic relationships. This is because the researchers emphasised that it is important to draw distinctions between different types of relationships, and the different expectations that go with each, which may impact on the perceived equity levels. Hence, this suggests that SET is a limited explanation for only some types of relationships.

Answer 30

+ Rusbult’s Investment Model features high ecological validity because it can easily explain abusive relationships, by shifting the focus from relationship satisfaction to that of investment and viable alternatives, as demonstrated by Rusbult and Martz (1995). These researchers found that the predictions based off of Rusbult’s model can explain why ‘battered women’ often return to their abusive partners, and explained this in terms of making significant investments and having few alternative partners, rather than satisfaction (which is obviously not present in an abusive relationship, featuring intimate partner violence, for both partners). Therefore, this shift of focus may be considered refreshing and a more valid explanation of abusive relationships compared to SET or equity theory. + Although self-report measures are usually criticised as lacking objectivity and creating qualitative data, this is not the case with Rusbult’s model. The key elements of his model focus on an individual’s perception of their investments, resources and energy, as opposed to a quantitative value. This makes sense and has high ecological validity when considering that an individual’s perception of their investments is often different to their partner’s perception in the instance of relationship breakdown. Therefore, Rusbult’s investment model has used the correct methodology to accurately reflect the subjective nature of the model’s features. Social desirability bias — Rusbult’s Investment Model sees the motivation to continue with a relationship according to the investments, time and energy which an individual has contributed. However, the motivation to see a couple’s future plans come to fruition may be a bigger predictor of relationship success, as opposed to initial investments which are often very low in the early stages of romantic relationships. This was suggested by Goodfriend and Agnew (2008). Therefore, Rusbult’s model may have oversimplified the concept of investment and its future implications on the plans that couples make together. Correlation does not equal causation

relationships Flashcards

(54 cards)