Relationships

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Relationships
    • Evolutionary explanations
      • Sexual selection
        • PURPOSE: make babies and pass genes
        • **** sons hypothesis: choose a successful and attractive
        • Peacock theory: bolder the better
          • handicap hypothesis: exaggerated features are a handicap so males who survives must be the true survivor
        • Intersexual: (women) choose for certain qualities Intrasexual: fight over mate to prove you are strong
          • Buss (1989) Aim: explored males and females qualities wanted in marriage partner Procedure: 10000+ people from 37 cultures were questioned Findings: Women wanted "good financial prospects" - security. Men wanted "physical attractiveness and youth" - fertility.
      • Human reproductive behaviour
        • Social constructs: gender roles and marital roles
          • Clark and Hatfield (1989): P: Males and female approached random strangers at uni. F: No females, 75% accepted for ST sex. E: Cultural bias/alpha bias
          • male have psychiological mechanism of partner decrease attractiveness after sex
        • Dishonest signals: makeup, clothes, wealth, cosmetic surgery, perfume
          • Facial features
            • Thomhill and Gangestad 1993: 1) Average faces are attractive 2) Females with childlike features are most attractive(large eyes, small noses and full lips) 3) Males with strong jaw lines and large noses (i.e testosterone enlarged) are most attractive
          • Breasts and butts
            • Females with large butts and ***** are prime choice. they store fat so indicate nutritional status hence fertility
          • Penises
            • humans have the thickest and flexible **** because female choice i.e sexual satisfaction so (indirectly) reproductive success
          • Size of testicles
            • Gorilla's pair has just 1 ounce but has many harems so no sperm comp.
              • Human males have 1.5 ounce because they have sperm comp. which means monogamy is a social construct.
          • Hips: Singh (1993) - men prefer women with small waist and large hips(0.7) narrow hips show absence of pregnancy. Men are 0.9
          • Symmetry
            • Mollers (1992): women with symmetrical pleasing male partners have the best orgasms. Cartwright (2000): women with symmetrical breasts are more fertile. symmetrical males and females have  2x/3x more sexual partners than unsymm.
    • Factors affecting attractiveness
      • Physical attractiveness
        • Look towards evolution part.
          • Cunningham: Baby features. 75Pp male undergraduates, shown 50 photos of females. F: Positive correlation between small nose ect.
        • Babies show preference to face by looking at it more. If crying, you ugly.
      • Filter theory
        • 1) Filter is we only meet a very small fraction of people living in our area (proximity filter) 2) similar social groups and stuff. 3) psychological factors determines ST or LTR. 4) Field of Desirable.
          • Study: Students at uni, STR = less 18 months LTR = more 18 months given a questionnaire. Findings: attitude similarity was most important factor for STR. complimenting each other's needs for LTR
      • Matching hypothesis
        • Walster: P: randomly allocated 700+ 2st year Minnasota students into blind dates for uni dance. H: aspire to be with people who has a high level of social desirability. F: reality went for someone very similar. down to the probability of getting someone better, so settle for someone like us. All students completed questionnaires on various qualities e.g social skills, IQ. Physical attractiveness was assessed on entry to the dance. Prediction: PP would like their partners if they matched well but NO they were only interested in physical attractiveness
    • Theories of romantic relationships
      • Rusbult's investment model
        • Commitment defined as a person's intent to maintain and remains psychologically attached to relationships.
          • 3) Investment Size: family, time , possessions and if a relationship ends, resources decline.
          • Two variables that link to commitment: * Equity - inequity = distress -> less com ->  rel will end *Social support - fam'/friends commend -> cause positive influence cause longer duration of rel.
            • (Rusbult and Sprecher)Empirical research revealed good consistency: *SL high if high rewards and low costs. *Com. higher due to SL higher but also IS higher. *but only whenlower QoA partners. *investment size is negatively associated
      • Duck's phase model
        • Longitudal study: 2 factors that threatened
          • Predisposing: a tendency to suffer from a particular attitude or act a particular way.
          • Precipitating: a typically bad cause ( an event, situation) to happen suddenly e.g death. or more situational circumstances which contribute to the break up.
            • 4 Stagers: 1) Inter-psychic - cognitive process of dissatisfaction 2) Dyadic - talk it through e.g arguments and eventually come to the next threshold if not solved 3) Social - social alliances cause grief by revealing bad/good information. 4) Grave dressing - start retelling the story and revealing endearing qualities as horror stories or everything is okay and move on.
              • Kassin: Women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for breakup while men blame lack of sex. Women wish to remain friends while males want a clean break suggesting gender differences that the model does not consider
              • Argyle: women identified lack of emotional support as a reason for break up while men cited absence of fun.
      • equity theory
        • give and take make satisfied relationships and you fulfil each others needs. however equity =/= equality. its received ratio of inputs and outputs e.g A's benefits - costs = B's benefits - cost
          • 4:3 5:4
          • if we perceive inequity in our relationships, we try to resolve it by: giving less/giving more, changing the amount you demand from it, change perception of inputs/outputs.
            • Remares survaeyed 1500 couples in the US. Found an increase of divorce. Women mostly feeling underbenefitted,
      • Social exchange theory
        • remember: max rewards, min cost.
    • Virtual relationships
      • self-disclosure
        • Hyperpersonal Model: WE have more time to control what we disclose and cues we send (selectiove self presentation - presenting yourself in a positive and idealised way) removes small talk.
          • but also because of deinviduation -- keyboard warriors, we are not likely to self disclose to the fear of ridicule because it stops inhibitions that make people more blunt and aggressive,
      • absence of gating
        • gating = an obstacle (we have features that could interfere with the relationships)
          • CMC allows freedom, allowing relationships to flourish. Could explain the popularity of online dating websites.
            • Mckenna: Argued that the absence of gating is huge avantage. Looked at CMC use by lonely and socially anxious people. F: People were more able to express their true selves than offline. Of romantic relationships initially formed online, 70% survived more than 2 years. This is a higher proportion than for relationships formed offline.
      • Reduced Cue Theory
        • Dating in the dark: lacks facial expression but does have emotional state cures and tone of voice which CMC does not.
    • Parasocial theory
      • Levels of parasocial
        • 1) Entertainment – social: celebs are source of entertainment, e.g footballers, aids in social interactions with peers like office gossip. 2) Intense-personal: obsessive personal thoughts and intense feelings e.g Brad Pitt, could think they are soul mates. 3) Borderline pathological: highest level of worship, uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours e.g #CutForBieber
      • absoption-addiction model
        • People have something missing from their life, so escape from RL to fulfil what is missing and get addicted by the high they get from it. Can happen by stress to send an entertainment-personal to borderline psychological.
          • Maltby (2001): Found a positive correlation between extreme parasocial relationships and mental health issues (FFA), e.g anxiety, depression
          • RL application: Britney Spear’s Masahiko Shizana – a Japanese native who send her 100s of love notes and kept tracking her homes and parents homes. Lawyer said it was a cultural misunderstanding though.
      • attachment theory
        • Insecure-resistant: have unfulfilled needs but can't handle rejection. so are more suspectible to PR. no chance of rejections
          • Roberts: P: 1) 200 students (half male) 2) Questionnaire  similar to McCutcheon's celeb attitude scale. F: Found positive correlation between insecure and contacting celebs thru twitter.
            • However McCulcheon 2006 says there is no correlation between personality types and views on celebs. personality is formed by attachment types.
        • insecure-avoidant: have neither social or parasocial relationships
          • Roberts: P: 1) 200 students (half male) 2) Questionnaire  similar to McCutcheon's celeb attitude scale. F: Found positive correlation between insecure and contacting celebs thru twitter.
            • However McCulcheon 2006 says there is no correlation between personality types and views on celebs. personality is formed by attachment types.
      • Parasocial characteristics: not FTF, not recipicated, fictional characters, status differences, knowing is only one way.
  • 2) Quality of alternatives: a person that can obtain what they want elsewhere - high level of QoA
    • 3) Investment Size: family, time , possessions and if a relationship ends, resources decline.
    • Model consists of three processes 1) Satisfaction Level: a person with needs met enjoy high SL

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Relationships resources »