RELATIONSHIPS
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
- Sexual selection - selecting characteristics that lead to successful reproduction
- Anisogamy - differences between gametes
- Intersexual selection - between the sexes ie females wanting quality over quantity
- Intrasexual selection - within the sexes ie males compete for quantity of females
- Buss - survey of 10000 adults in 33 countries - found females value resource related traits & males value chastity & good looks
- Clark & Hatfield - uni campus study with 3 questions - 75% of males said yes immediately to going to bed with the females
- Social norms changing - Bereczkei argues that females now less dependent on males as they have more jobs, and Chang found
in China a decreased in importance of virginity
- Waist-hip ratio - Singh - 0.7:1 empirical evidence of an honest sign of fertility valued by men
SELF DISCLOSURE
- Altman & Taylor - Social Penetration Theory revealing your inner self through a reciprocal exchange of info
- Breadth & depth of disclosure
- Must be reciprocal - leads to increased intimacy & greater understanding
- Sprecher & Hendrick - strong correlation of intimacy and self-disclosure, also supported by Laurenceau in married couples
- Practical applications - Hass & Stafford 57% homosexual couples say effective self-disclosure increased intimacy of relationship
- Cultural differences - Tang et al found greater self-disclosure in USA than China, but no difference in satisfaction of relationship
- Breakdown - not necessarily enough to save a relationship & can even contribute to it in Duck’s dyadic phase
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
- Halo effect - Dion - good looking people rated as kind/strong so we behave this way towards them - self-fulfilling prophecy
- Matching hypothesis - Walster - we choose partners who are of similar levels of physical attractiveness to yourself
- Symmetrical faces - Shackelford & Larsen - & neotenous features
- Palmer & Peterson - halo effect in politics, people rated as physically attractive also rated as more politically knowledgeable,
having clear implications for democracy
- Individual differences - Towhey used MACHO scale - greater score of sexist attitudes also places more importance of picture of
potential partner that biographic info
- Taylor on Tinder - matching hypothesis found not to be evident as people generally swipe right on people with a greater physical
attractiveness to themselves
- Cultural consistency - Cunningham Hispanic & Asian men rated prominent jaw & high cheekbones attractive, Kim found
Korean & Americans rated more attractive people as trustworthy & kind
FILTER THEORY
- Kerchoff & Davis compared attitudes & complementarity in short & long term relationships
- Turning the field of availables into field of desirables
- Social demographic - socially, culturally, geographically nearby to ourselves more likely to be similar
- Similarity in attitudes (first 18 months of relationship) - finance, political, religious
- Complementarity (after 18 months) - forming a whole together, other has features we lack
- Winch research support - similarity is key for short term & complementing each others traits is key for long-lasting
relationships
- Replicability lacking - Levinger argues that the 18 month-cut off point as a distinction of long term and short term relationships
struggles to define depth - commitment early on?
- Alignment effect - Davis & Rusbult found partners bring their attitudes in line over time so similarity if an EFFECT of attraction,
& Anderson found cohabiting partners experience emotional convergence
- Temporal validity - rise of online dating allows for less emphasis of social demographic variables, & it has become more socially
acceptable to date someone outside of your own culture
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
- Thibault & Kelley based on economic assumptions of exchange
- Whether the rewards in a relationship outweigh the costs - must be profitable - minimax principle
- Comparison level - what we believe we deserve based off of media and past experiences
- Comparison level for alternatives - could I do better, comparing your current partner to others/situations
- 4 stages: sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation
- Direction of causality - SET claims that dissatisfaction only arises when CLalt is greater than profit - Argyle argues that we do not
consider alternatives UNLESS we are dissatisfied, & Simpson found that people in a relationship rated strangers lower in
attraction
- Abusive relationships - basis of explaining why people remain in situations of intimate partner violence - alternative is low as
lose rewards like a house & children (Rusbult & Martz)
- Types of relationships - Clark & Mills argues that SET only applies to exchange relationships where favours are the basis ie
colleagues, whereas romantic relationships are communal & economic principles are a concern for welfare
- Equity ignored - argues that balance of profit & fairness is more important than personal profit
EQUITY THEORY
- Partners want balance & fairness
- Not about personal profit, but a balance between the partners & perceived fairness
- Inequity = dissatisfaction - over benefited/under benefited
- Possible ways of dealing with inequity such as changing perception of equity (cognitive), or trying to make things more fair
(behavioural)
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
- Sexual selection - selecting characteristics that lead to successful reproduction
- Anisogamy - differences between gametes
- Intersexual selection - between the sexes ie females wanting quality over quantity
- Intrasexual selection - within the sexes ie males compete for quantity of females
- Buss - survey of 10000 adults in 33 countries - found females value resource related traits & males value chastity & good looks
- Clark & Hatfield - uni campus study with 3 questions - 75% of males said yes immediately to going to bed with the females
- Social norms changing - Bereczkei argues that females now less dependent on males as they have more jobs, and Chang found
in China a decreased in importance of virginity
- Waist-hip ratio - Singh - 0.7:1 empirical evidence of an honest sign of fertility valued by men
SELF DISCLOSURE
- Altman & Taylor - Social Penetration Theory revealing your inner self through a reciprocal exchange of info
- Breadth & depth of disclosure
- Must be reciprocal - leads to increased intimacy & greater understanding
- Sprecher & Hendrick - strong correlation of intimacy and self-disclosure, also supported by Laurenceau in married couples
- Practical applications - Hass & Stafford 57% homosexual couples say effective self-disclosure increased intimacy of relationship
- Cultural differences - Tang et al found greater self-disclosure in USA than China, but no difference in satisfaction of relationship
- Breakdown - not necessarily enough to save a relationship & can even contribute to it in Duck’s dyadic phase
PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
- Halo effect - Dion - good looking people rated as kind/strong so we behave this way towards them - self-fulfilling prophecy
- Matching hypothesis - Walster - we choose partners who are of similar levels of physical attractiveness to yourself
- Symmetrical faces - Shackelford & Larsen - & neotenous features
- Palmer & Peterson - halo effect in politics, people rated as physically attractive also rated as more politically knowledgeable,
having clear implications for democracy
- Individual differences - Towhey used MACHO scale - greater score of sexist attitudes also places more importance of picture of
potential partner that biographic info
- Taylor on Tinder - matching hypothesis found not to be evident as people generally swipe right on people with a greater physical
attractiveness to themselves
- Cultural consistency - Cunningham Hispanic & Asian men rated prominent jaw & high cheekbones attractive, Kim found
Korean & Americans rated more attractive people as trustworthy & kind
FILTER THEORY
- Kerchoff & Davis compared attitudes & complementarity in short & long term relationships
- Turning the field of availables into field of desirables
- Social demographic - socially, culturally, geographically nearby to ourselves more likely to be similar
- Similarity in attitudes (first 18 months of relationship) - finance, political, religious
- Complementarity (after 18 months) - forming a whole together, other has features we lack
- Winch research support - similarity is key for short term & complementing each others traits is key for long-lasting
relationships
- Replicability lacking - Levinger argues that the 18 month-cut off point as a distinction of long term and short term relationships
struggles to define depth - commitment early on?
- Alignment effect - Davis & Rusbult found partners bring their attitudes in line over time so similarity if an EFFECT of attraction,
& Anderson found cohabiting partners experience emotional convergence
- Temporal validity - rise of online dating allows for less emphasis of social demographic variables, & it has become more socially
acceptable to date someone outside of your own culture
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
- Thibault & Kelley based on economic assumptions of exchange
- Whether the rewards in a relationship outweigh the costs - must be profitable - minimax principle
- Comparison level - what we believe we deserve based off of media and past experiences
- Comparison level for alternatives - could I do better, comparing your current partner to others/situations
- 4 stages: sampling, bargaining, commitment, institutionalisation
- Direction of causality - SET claims that dissatisfaction only arises when CLalt is greater than profit - Argyle argues that we do not
consider alternatives UNLESS we are dissatisfied, & Simpson found that people in a relationship rated strangers lower in
attraction
- Abusive relationships - basis of explaining why people remain in situations of intimate partner violence - alternative is low as
lose rewards like a house & children (Rusbult & Martz)
- Types of relationships - Clark & Mills argues that SET only applies to exchange relationships where favours are the basis ie
colleagues, whereas romantic relationships are communal & economic principles are a concern for welfare
- Equity ignored - argues that balance of profit & fairness is more important than personal profit
EQUITY THEORY
- Partners want balance & fairness
- Not about personal profit, but a balance between the partners & perceived fairness
- Inequity = dissatisfaction - over benefited/under benefited
- Possible ways of dealing with inequity such as changing perception of equity (cognitive), or trying to make things more fair
(behavioural)
