Relationships
- Created by: Amelia.Page
- Created on: 11-06-19 10:35
View mindmap
- Relationships
- Sexual reproduction
- Anisogamy
- The differences between male and female sex cells
- Inter-sexual selection
- Preferred strategy of the female
- Quality over quantity
- Intra-sexual selection
- Preferred strategy of the male
- Quantity over quality
- Evaluation
- Buss surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found a lot of evidence to support this theory
- Clark and Hatfield: university campus "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?" No females agreed, 75% of the males agreed.
- Ignores social and cultural influences
- Wayforth and Dunbar: Lonely hearts survey, women typically emphasised their attractiveness and youth, men often offered resources
- Anisogamy
- Factors affecting attraction
- Self-disclosure
- Social penetration theory
- Gaining a deeper understanding over time
- Altman and Taylor
- Breadth and Depth
- Starts wide superficial but becomes deeper
- Reciprocity of self-disclosure
- Evaluation
- Sprecher and Hendrick: Heterosexual dating couples. Found a strong correlation between self-disclosure and satisfaction
- Real-life application in relationship therapies.
- Cultural differences: Western norms
- Correlations vs causation
- Not the only thing in a relationship (ducks phase model etc.
- Social penetration theory
- Physical attractiveness
- Shackelford and Larson: symmetrical faces and neotenous faces.
- Halo effect
- Dion et al
- The matching hypothesis
- Walster et al
- Evaluation
- Research support from Palmer and Peterson: People rated as more attractive are also more likely to be rated as knowledgeable about politics.
- Individual differences: Physical attractiveness can be influences by external forces.
- Research support for the matching hypothesis: Feingold and a meta-analysis of 17 studies
- Cultural influences are not ignored
- Filter theory
- 1) Social demography
- 2) Similarity in attitudes
- 3) Complementarity
- Evaluation
- Matching hypothesis and face validity
- Temporal validity
- Cause and effect: do we change our views to match that of our partners?
- Similarity or complementarity? Anderson et al found that similarity increases over time.
- Self-disclosure
- Theories of romantic relationships
- Social exchange theory
- Rewards, costs and profits
- Comparison level
- Comparison level for alternatives
- Stages of relationship development
- 1. Sampling stage
- 2. Bargaining stage
- 3. Commitment stage
- 4. Institutionalisation stage
- Evaluation
- Exchange relationships = work etc Communal relationships = romance
- Direction of cause and effect
- Ignores equity
- Research is often on strangers
- Equity theory
- Equity means fairness. Partners having equal levels of perceived profit and loss
- Changes in perceived equity and dealing with inequity
- Evaluation
- Utne et al surveyed 118 couples between 16 and 45 years who had been together for at least 2 years.
- Couples who rated the relationship as equitable were more satisfied.
- Cultural influences: Aumer-Ryan et al: collectivist cultures prefer to over benefit.
- Individual differences
- Couldn't distinguish between relationships which endeed and those which did not.
- Utne et al surveyed 118 couples between 16 and 45 years who had been together for at least 2 years.
- Rusbult's investment model
- Comparison with alternatives
- Investment size
- Intrinsic investment: what we bring to a relationship
- Extrinsic investment: what we get as a result of the realtionship
- Satisfaction vs commitment
- Relationship maintenance mechanisms
- Accommodation
- Willingness to sacrifice
- Forgiveness
- Positive illusions
- Ridiculing alternatives
- Evaluation
- Le and Agnew meta-analysis of 52 studies
- Explains abusive relationships
- Oversimplifies investment
- Duck's phase model
- 1. Intra-psychic phase
- "I can't stand it anymore"
- 2. Dyadic phase
- "I would be justified in withdrawing"
- 3. Social phase
- "I mean it"
- 4. Grave-dressing phase
- "It's now inevitable"
- Evaluation
- Incomplete: resurrection phase
- Retrospective
- Cultural bias
- Description vs explanation
- 1. Intra-psychic phase
- Social exchange theory
- Virtual relationships
- Reduced cues
- The hyper personal model
- Boom and bust phenomenon
- Absence of gating (people do not care as much about disabilities or looks)
- Evaluation
- Lack of research support for reduced cutes (emojis and punctuation)
- Whitty and Joinson: online questions tend to be more direct, persona, probing and intimate.
- Types of CMC, anticipating face to face meetings vs online posts.
- McKenna and Bargh: socially anxious people were more able to express their true selves online.
- Parasocial relationships
- Levels of Prosocial relationships
- Entertainment-social
- Least intense type of parasocial relationship.
- A source of entertainment
- Intense-personal
- A greater relationship with the celebrity
- Obsessive thoughts and intense feelings
- Borderline pathological
- Strongest level of celebrity worship
- Uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours
- Entertainment-social
- McCutcheon et al: The Celebrity Attitudes Scale
- The absorption-addiction model
- Absorption
- Seekign fulfilment in celebrity worship
- As much attention focused on the celebrity as possible.
- Addiction
- Sustain their commitment by feeling stronger and closer to the celebrity
- Absorption
- Attachment types
- Insecure-resistant
- Most likely to form parasocial relationships
- Unfulfilled needs without the fear of rejection
- Insecure-avoidant
- Least likely to develop a parasocial relationship
- Fear of any form of rejection
- Insecure-resistant
- Evaluation
- Maltby et al: girls aged 14-16 with poor body image experienced a parasocial relationship with a female celebrity whose body shape they admired.
- McCutceon et al surveyed 299 participants and found that insecure attachments were no more likely or unlikely to have parasocial relationships.
- Use of self-report techniques and correlation analysis for most research
- Not tied to one culture alone
- Levels of Prosocial relationships
- Sexual reproduction
Comments
No comments have yet been made