relationships P3

Question 1

factors affecting attraction consists of?

Answer 1

physical attractiveness
filter theory
self disclosure

Question 2

What does physical attraction consist of?

Answer 2

Halo effect
-symmetry
-baby faces
Matching hypothesis

Question 3

Why does symmetry affect attractiveness? shackleford & Larsen 1997

Answer 3

S&L found that people with more symetrical faces are rated as more attractive

• signal of genetic fitness that can’t be faked - making it an ‘honest’ signal
• an evolutionary explanation -attributes that signal high quality and naturally selected

Question 4

Why are baby faces seen as attractive?

Answer 4

Neotenous features trigger protective and caring instincts, related to the formation of attachment in infancy
-evolutionary, as features strengthen attachment -> naturally selected

Question 5

What is the Halo effect describing?

Answer 5

how physical attractiveness is generalised
-hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of physically attractive people, belief that all over attributes are overwhelmingly positive
Dion 1972

Question 6

what did dion 1972 find in relation the halo effect?

Answer 6

that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people

Question 7

what is meant by matching hypothesis?

Answer 7

we choose partners who match us in attractiveness (physical and intelligence etc)
-Waltser 1996

Question 8

what was the procedure of walster 1966?

Answer 8

computer dance-752 first year students at university of minnesota, students rated on physical attractiveness when picking up tickets by objective observers and completed questionnaires about attraction
ppts told data used was to pair partners but was randomly paired

Question 9

what was the findings of walster?

Answer 9

physically attractive partners were most liked and more likely to be asked on another date - not support

Question 10

what did Berschied 1971 find when they replicated waltsers experiment?

Answer 10

replicated the study
students selected partners themselves
-chose partners of similar physical attractiveness
-suggests we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical attractiveness matches our own
-partner choice is a compromise, we avoid rejection by the most physically attractive and settle for those in our league

Question 11

A strength for physical attractiveness is RS for halo effect

Answer 11

Palmer & Peterson 2012 found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.

• this halo effect persisted even when participants were told the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
• > this suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters

Question 12

A strength for PA is RS for evolutionary processes.

Answer 12

Cunningham 1995 found large eyes and a small nose in females were rated as attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males

• > what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures - attractive features are of a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated (sexual selection)
• > therefore the importance of physical attractiveness makes sense in evolutionary terms

Question 13

A limit for physical attraction is real-world research does not support matching hypothesis

Answer 13

Taylor 2011 studied online dating activity logs, which measured actaul dating choices and not fantasy preferences.
this real-world test of the hypothesis found that people sought dates with partners who were more physically attractive than themselves.
-> this contradicts the central prediction that real couples seek to match attractiveness

Question 14

A counterpoint of physical attractiveness, of the limit

Answer 14

choosing people for dating is different from real-world romance
Feingold’s 1988, meta-analysis found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
-ppl who may express ideals in dating selection and also in lab research
->this shows there is support for the matching hypothesis from real-world studies

Question 15

What is meant by filter theory?

Answer 15

a field of available and field of desirables

• Kerckhoff & Davis 1962 explains attraction in terms of attitudes & personalities
  1. we consider the field of availables - potential partners who are accesible
  2. from this we select the field of desirables via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship

Question 16

what is the 1st filter?

Answer 16

-social demography
factors that influence chance of meeting
-features which decribes populations, social demographics include geographical locations & social class
-more likely to meet & have meaningful encounters with ppl who are physically close & share other features with yourself
-anyone who is too different is not a potential partner -> filtered out before next stage -> outcome = homogamy, partner is similar to you

Question 17

what is the 2nd filter?

Answer 17

similarity in attitudes

• sharing beliefs & values, important for couples who have been together less than 18months, in early stages of relationship, agreeing on basic values promotes good communication & self disclosure
• law of attraction, bryne 1997, found that similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction, no similarity exists -> relationship fades after few dates

Question 18

what is the 3rd filter?

Answer 18

complementarity

• partners meet each other’s needs, partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks e.g. one may enjoy making the other laugh & other enjoys being made to laugh
• important in longer term, complementarity is thought to give the romantic partners feeling of togetherness & making a whole

Question 19

A strength of the filter theory is support from Kerckhoff & Davis’ original study

Answer 19

Dating couples completed questionnaires to measure similarity of attitudes/values, complementarity of needs & relationship closeness.
closeness was linked to similarity of values only for partners together less than 18months. complementarity of needs was more important in longer relationships
-> this is evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, but complementarity becomes more important later

Question 20

A counterpoint of strength for filter theory

Answer 20

original findings not replicated perhaps due to social changes and assumption that partners together more than 18 months must be more committed.
-> this assumption is questionable so filter theory is based on research evidence that lacks validity

Question 21

A limitation of filter theory is that complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction

Answer 21

filter theory predicts high levels of satisfaction in a relationship with complementarity e.g. one partner needs to be dominant and the other needs to submissive.
but Markey & Markey 2013, found that long term lesbian romantic partners were most satisfied when both partners were equally dominant.
-> Therefore similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples

Question 22

A limit or filter theory is that perceived similarity matters more

Answer 22

Actual similarity is linked to attraction only in very brief lab-based interactions. Perceived similarity found more important in real-world relationships. One interpretation is that romantic partners perceive they have more similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
-> this means that perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not a cause - not predicted by filter theory.

Question 23

A extra eval for filter theory is social change

Answer 23

Filter theory claims physical location & other demographic factors initially filter the field of availables down to people similar to ourselves (homogamy).
However, the role of filters had changed - online dating increases the field of availables beyond location. Such social changes increase relationships between people from different backgrounds.
-> this means filter theory needs to be adapted to explain modern relationships by completely revising the features of the 1st level filter

Question 24

eval extra for physical attractiveness is individual differences

Answer 24

A lot of evidence indicates the important role of physical attractiveness in relationship formation e,g, sexual selection.
But some people are not affected by attractiveness, Touhey found that people with non sexist attitudes were uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners.
-> this shows that the impact of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors

Question 25

what is the theory of romantic relationships consisted of?

Answer 25

Social exchange theory Equity theory Rusbult's model Ducks phase model

Question 26

what is meant by self disclosure?

Answer 26

it's important early in relationships -refers to revealing intimate information to another person e.g. fears, likes and dislikes share what really matters to us most ppl are careful about disclosing too much too soon -important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction

Question 27

why does the social penetration theory relate to self disclosure?

Answer 27

- self disclosure is limited at the start of relationships, Altman & taylor 1973 suggests it is a gradual process revealing your inner self to someone else, a sign of trust & partner needs to reciprocate - penetration -> development, as reveal more, become more penetrated into each others lives, deprenetration - dissatisfied partners disclose less as they disengage - breadth of info is narrow to begin with, as if too much info is revealed it can be off putting - depth increases -> more layers are gradually revealed, revealing more intimate info like painful memories etc.

Question 28

what is meant by reciprocity of self disclosure?

Answer 28

a need for reciprocity for a relationship to develop - Reis & Shaver 1988 suggest that in addition to a broadening and deepening of self disclosure, there must be reciprocity - successful relationships will involve disclosure from one partner which is recieved sensitively by the other partner -> leading to further self disclosure from other partner

Question 29

A strength for self disclosure is support from research studies

Answer 29

Sprecher & Hendrick 2004 found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure in heterosexual couples. Men and women who used self disclosure were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. -> this supports the validity of the view that reciprocated self disclosure is a key part of a satisfying relationship

Question 30

Counterpoint for support of self disclosure

Answer 30

Researchers found strong positive correlations but this does not mean that self disclosure causes relationships to be satisfying, it may be that satisfied partners disclose morre or both caused by time spent together. -> this suggests that self disclosure may not cause satisfaction directly, which reduces the validity of social penetration theory

Question 31

strength for self disclosure is real world application to improve communication

Answer 31

Hass & Stafford 1998 found that 57% of homosexual men and women reported they used open and honest self disclosure as a relationship maintenance strategy. Couples who limit communication to small talk can be encouraged to increase self disclosure in order to deepen their own relationships. -> this highlights the importance of self disclosure and suggests the theory can be used to support people having relationship problems.

Question 32

A limit for self disclosure is it's not satisfying in all cultures

Answer 32

Tang 2013 concluded that people in the US, individualist culture, self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in China, collectivist culture. Even though the level of disclosure was lower in china, relationship satisfaction was no different from that in the US. -> therefore social penetration theory is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it is not neccesarily generalisable to other cultures.

Question 33

what does social exchange theory consist of?

Answer 33

assumes relationships are guided by the minimax principle - nature of costs and rewards - Cl is a measure of profit - CLalt is an additional measure of profit - CLalt depends on our current relationship - four stages of a relationship

Question 34

what is meant by the minimax principle?

Answer 34

Thibault & Kelley 1959 proposed that relationships could be explained in terms of economics - an exchange of goods or less intangible things. -satisfaction is judged in terms of profit, the perceived value of costs minus the value of rewards -partners are motivated to minimise the costs to themselves whilst maximising rewards -profitable relationships continue, unprofitable relationships fail

Question 35

what is meant by the nature of costs and rewards?

Answer 35

costs may include loss of time or stress rewards may include sex, praise or companionship -opportunity cost needs to be accounted for, the recognition that investment in a given relationship is at the cost of expending those resources elsewhere

Question 36

what is meant by comparison level?

Answer 36

a judgement of the reward level we believe we deserve in a relationship, determined by relationship experiences and social norms -we will generally persue a relationship where the CL is high but some people may have low CLs

Question 37

what is meant by comparison level for alternatives? CLalt

Answer 37

we consider whether we might gain more rewards and endure fewer costs in a different relationship or none - we stay in a relationship, despite the alternative available, when we consider it is more rewarding than the alternatives - if relationship is satisfying, alternatives aren't noticed

Question 38

what does comparison level of alternatives depend on?

Answer 38

the current relationship duck 1994 suggests that there are always alternatives around -if the costs of our current relationship outweigh the rewards than alternatives become more attractive

Question 39

what are the four stages of a relation ship according to SET?

Answer 39

sampling stage - exploring rewards anf costs by experiementing in our relationships & observing others Bargaining stage - start of a relationship where partners negotiate around costs and rewards Commitment stage - more stable relationship, costs reduce and rewards increase Institutionalisation stage - partners become settled, as norms of relationships are established

Question 40

A strength of SET is research support of its concepts

Answer 40

Kurdeck 1995 interviewed homo and heterosexual couples, committed partners percieved they had most rewards and fewer costs and also viewed alternatives as unattractive. The study showed that the main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of each other, so they individually have an effect. -> the findings confirmed predictions of SET, supporting the validity of the theory in gay and lesbian, as well as heterosexual couples.

Question 41

counterpoint for strength of SET

Answer 41

studies into SET ignore the role of equity, what matters in a relationship is not a balance of rewards and costs but the partners perception that this is fair -> therefore set is limited exp. because it can't account for a significant proportion of research findings that confirm the importance of equity

Question 42

A limit of set is the direction of cause and effect

Answer 42

SET claims that we become disattisfied after we perceive costs outweigh rewards or alternatives seem more attractive. But Argyle 1987 argues dissatisfaction comes first, then we start to perceive costs and alternatives - committed partners do not even notice alternatives. -> therefore considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse - a direction not predicted by SET

Question 43

A LIMIT FOR SET IS THE CONCEPTS ARE VAGUE

Answer 43

unlike in research, real world rewards/ costs are subjective and hard to define because they vary e.g. having your partners loyalty is not rewarding for everyone. Also comparison levels are problematic - it is unclear what the values of CL and CLalt need to be before individuals feel dissatisfied. -> this means SET is difficult to test in a valid way

Question 44

what is the role of equity in relationships?

Answer 44

- most ppl have a need for equity, SET suggests that partners aim to maximise the rewards and minimise the cost of a relationship, contrastingly Walster 1978, proposed that equit is more important- partners level of profit should be the same - the underbenefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied & feel anger or resentment - the overbenefitted partner may feel less dissatisfied but is likely to feel discomfort and shame - equity is about fairness of ratios,

Question 45

what are the consequences of inequity?

Answer 45

- the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction - equity theory predicts a strong positive correlation between the two -> applies to both partners, - at the start -> relationship is perfectly natural to contribute more than you recieve -> if continues, dissatisfaction will set in - underbenefitted partner is motivated to make the relationship more equitable if they belief the relationship is salvageable - change could be cognitive, a dissatisfied partner may revise their perceptions of rewards and costs, to make it feel more satisfying - what was once perceived as a cost can become accepted as the norm for a relationship

Question 46

A strength of equity theory is research support

Answer 46

Utne 1984 conducted a survey with recently married couples who had been together for more than two years before marrying. Those who thought their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over or under benefitting. -> this study supports the central predictions of equity theory that equity is a major concern of couples and is linked with satisfaction

Question 47

counterpoint to equity strength

Answer 47

Berg & McQuinn 1986 found that equity did not distinguish between relationships which ended and those that continued - other variables were more important. -> this means the validity of the theory is in doubt because the predictions of the theory are not supported by research

Question 48

a limit to equity theory is it may not be valid in all cultures

Answer 48

Aumer-Ryan 2007 found that couples in an individualistic culture were most satisfied when their relationship was equitable. However, partners in a collectivist culture were most satisfied when over benefitting, so no explained by gender differences. -> This suggests that the theory is limited because it only applies to some cultures

Question 49

a limit to equity is there are individual differences

Answer 49

Huseman 1987 suggest that not all partners are concerned about equity. Benevolents are happy to contribute more than they get - underbenefit and entitleds believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty. -> this shows that a desire for equity varies from one individual to another & is not a universal feature of romantic relationships.

Question 50

why is rusbults investment model seen as an extension of social exchange theory?

Answer 50

- it further developed SET - a satisfying relationship is one where the partners are getting more out of the relationship than they expect, given social norms and their previous experiences

Question 51

what 3 factors are said to lead to commitment in rusbults model?

Answer 51

1. Satisfaction - the extent to which partners feel the rewards of the romantic relationship exceed the costs 2. Comparison with alternatives - a judgement about whether a relationship with a different partner would increase rewards and reduce costs 3. Investment - the resources associated with a romantic relationship that would be lost if the relationship ended

Question 52

what are the two types of investment?

Answer 52

Intrinsic - resources put directly into the relationship e.g. money, time, self disclosure Extrinsic - investments that did not feature in the relationship which are now closely associated with it e.g. memories, a jointly purchased house

Question 53

what is commitment determined by according to rusbult?

Answer 53

determined by satisfaction + alternatives + investment -high levels of satisfaction + the alternatives are less attractive +the sizes of investment are increasing = partners will be committed to the relationship

Question 54

satisfaction vs commitment in rusbults model

Answer 54

Commitment is the main factor that causes people to stay in romantic relationships, satisfaction contributes to commitment -explains why dissatisfied partners stay in a relationship when their level of investment is high. they will be willing to put in the work to repair problems in the relationship so their investment is not wasted

Question 55

What are relationship maintenance mechanisms?

Answer 55

committed partners use maintenance behaviours to keep the relationship going: 1. Accommodating - promoting the relationship 2. Willingness to sacrifice - put partners interests first 3. forgiveness 4. positive illusions 5. Ridiculing alternatives

Question 56

A strength of rusbults model is research support from a meta analysis

Answer 56

Le & Agnew 2003 review found that satisfaction, CLalt and investment size all predicted commitment - commitment linked with greater stability & longevity. The outcomes were true for both men and women, across all cultures and for homosexual & heterosexual relationships. -> this suggests that the model's claim that these factors are universally important in relationships is valid

Question 57

counterpoint for strength of rusbults model

Answer 57

Research studies show strong correlations between factors, but it does not follow that these factors cause commitment e.g. perhaps commitment comes before investment -> therefore it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than the factors that are associated with it

Question 58

A strength for rusbults model is it can explain why people stay in abusive relationships

Answer 58

Rusbult & Martz 1995 studied abused women staying at a shelter. Those reporting the greatest investments and fewest alternatives were the most likely to return to abusive partners. The women in this study were dissatisfied with their relationships but returned to their partners because they were committed to them -> therefore the model shows that satisfaction on its own can't explain why people stay in relationships - commitment & investment are also factors

Question 59

A limit of rusbults model is that it oversimplifies investment

Answer 59

Goodfriend & Agnew 2008 argue that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. Early in a relationship partners make very few actual investments but they do invest in future plans - these motivate partners to commit -> this means that the original model is a limited explanation as it fails to consider the true complexity of investment

Question 60

what is ducks phase model?

Answer 60

2007 - a phase model of relationship breakdown, duck argued that the ending of a relationship is not a one-off event but a process that takes time and goes through four distinct phases - each phase has a threshold, which the perception of the relationship changes , the dissatisfied partner may reassess & decide the relationship isn't so bad or may cross threshold and go to next phase

Question 61

what are the ducks four phase model?

Answer 61

Intra-psychic Dyadic Social Grave dressing

Question 62

what happens during the intra psychic phase?

Answer 62

threshold ' i cant stand this anymore' - indicating a determination that something has to change - a partner becomes dissatisfied w relationship in its current form, then worry about the reasons for this -> focus on partners shortcomings - will keep to themselves but may share this with trusted friend & weigh up pros and cons

Question 63

what happens during the dyadic phase of ducks model?

Answer 63

'i would be justified in leaving' - once a partner concludes that they are justified in leaving the relationship, they have to discuss with their partner - dissatisfactions about equity, commitment are aired - self disclosures might be more frequent as partners reveal true feelings

Question 64

what happens during the social phase of ducks model?

Answer 64

the dissatisfied partner concludes 'i mean it' - once a partner wants to end the relationship they will seek support particularly from joint friends - these friends may choose a side but others may try & prevent the break-up by acting as a go-between - once the news is public, this is usually where the point of no return is.

Question 65

what happens during the grave dressing phase?

Answer 65

'its now inevitable' 'its time for a new life' once the end of becomes inevitable then a suitable story of the relationship and its end is prepared for wider consumption -this is likely to include an attempt to ensure that the storyteller will be judged most favourably -this creation of a personal story in addition to the public one is necessary so the partner can move on -begin to publicise a relationship

Question 66

A strength of duck is its application to real world relationship breakdown

Answer 66

The model suggests that some repair strategies might be more effective at one stage of relationship breakdown rather than another. For example, in the intra psychic partners could worry more positively about each other. Improving communication skills is beneficial in the dyadic phase -> this suggests that the model can provide supportive insights to help people through difficult times in their lives

Question 67

counterpoint for duck strength

Answer 67

Moghaddem 1993 argue the model is based on breakdown in individualist cultures where relationships are mostly voluntary and often end. Relationships in collectivist cultures are often obligatory and less easy to end - the whole concept of romantic relationship differs between cultures. -> therefore the models application to reverse breakdown can only be applied in some cultures

Question 68

A limitation of duck is the model is incomplete

Answer 68

Rollie & Duck 2006 added a resurection phase in which ex partners apply to future relationships what they have learned from the recent past. Also partners may return to earlier phases at any point and processes are more important than linear movement through phases. -> this means the original model does not take into account of the complexity of breakdown and its dynamic nature

Question 69

limit of duck is that early phases are less well explained

Answer 69

Research ppt's recall relationship breakdown retrospectively, so report may not be accurate. The intra psychic phase happens longer ago and partners may spend a long time in it, so recall of what happened could be especially distorted. -> therefore the model doesn't explain the early part of the breakdown processes as well as later phases

Question 70

how does self disclosure change when in virtual relationships?

Answer 70

self disclosure refers to revealing personal information and it increases as a relationship develops - self disclosure is crucial in FtoT relationships but what about virtual relationships? - these relationships are formed and maintained online e.g. email, social networking

Question 71

how does reduced cues theory affect virtual relationships?

Answer 71

reduced cues theory Sproull & Kiesler 1986 suggests that virtual relationships are less effective due to the lack of non verbal cues e.g. physical appearance in FtoF we rely on these cues -lack of cues about emotional state leads to deinviduation -people then feel freer from the constraints of social norms & this leads to blunt and even aggressive communication and a reluctance to self-disclose

Question 72

what does hyperpersonal model suggests about self disclosure and virtual relationships?

Answer 72

Walther 1996, 2011 - Hyperpersonal model suggests that since self disclosure happens more quickly in virtual relationships, relationships develop more quickly. 1. Sender has control & may be hyperhonest or hyperdishonest 2. Receivers feedback may reinforce senders selective self presentation -Anonymity is an important factor -'Strangers on a train' - people disclose a lot in anonymous situations

Question 73

what are the effects of absence of gating in virtual relationships?

Answer 73

argue a 'gate' is obstacles to a FtoF relationship- McKenna and Bargh - gates are absent so such relationships develop quicker than FtoF relationships and self disclosure becomes deeper - w/o gates people are free to be more like their true selves in virtual relationships - however -> create untrue identities to deceive people -> change gender, age or personality

Question 74

A limit for virtual relationships is lack of support for reduced cues theory

Answer 74

Online cues are not absent but different from FtF, e.g. taking time to respond on social media is more intimate than an immediate reply. Acronyms, emoticons and emojis are effective substitutes to FtF nonverbal cues such as facial expressions. -> this is hard for reduced cues theory to explain because it suggests virtual relationships can be as personal as FtF

Question 75

A limit for virtual relationships is a lack of research support for the hyperpersonal model

Answer 75

Ruppel 2017 meta analysis compared the frequency, breadth and depth of self disclosures in FtF and virtual relationships. In self report studies, self disclosure was greater in FTF relationships on all three measures. In experimental studies there were no significant differences. -> this challenges the models view that greater intimacy in virtual relationships should lead to greater self disclosure than FTF

Question 76

A counterpoint for virtual relationships lack of support for hyperpersonal model

Answer 76

Whitty & Joinson 2009 found that conversations in virtual relationships are direct and hyperhonest. Self presentation online can also be hyper dishonest e.g. inventing dating profiles -> this supports the models claims about hyperhonest and hyperdishonest self-disclosures and shows there are differences between FtF and virtual relationships.

Question 77

A strength of virtual relationships is support for absence of gating in virtual relationships

Answer 77

McKenna & Bargh 2000 studied online communications by shy and socially anxious people. In this group, 71% of the romantic relationships initially formed online survived more than two years, compared to 49% formed offline. -> this suggests that shy people do benefit online presumably because the gating that obstructs FtF relationships is absent online