Rewards/ needs satisfaction theory:
satisfying and gratifying= attractive.Seek rewarding stimuli and avoid punishment stimuli. Rewards reflect someones unmet needs
operant conditioning: direct reinforcement of pos reinforcement= attraction
classical conditoning: association of pos feelings at the time.
personality traits- similar- CASPI married couples who are similar are happier.
attitudes- attitude alllignment= modify attitude to be similar to aid rel dev.
Support: like people due to direct reinforcement:
Grifffitt and Guay, rated experimenter, higher if pos. X- lab, lacks mundane realism
Rewards/ needs ignores cutural and gender diff:
Lott: females are more focused on needs of others than recieving reinforcement. Not universal and culturally biased. Only explores recieving rewards not the satisfaction of giving.
Dis-similarity may be as important as similarity - Rosenbaum:
Dis-similarity repulsion hypothesis- s is initial attraction d- less attracted but stayed.
Just personality and attitudes ignores others e.g economic level similarity
research showed: choose partners with similar levels of body fat.
Social Exchange theory: exchanges to maximise rewards and minimise costs (R-C= outcome) commitment in relationships depends on possibility of the outcome. Thibaut and Kelley: comparison level to judge relationship. product of previous relationships and views on new exchanges, if profit is less than CL then unsatisfied and less attrative.CL for alternatives (costs of new and evaluate profit levels)
Equity theory: strive for fairness in rel. Distress= inequity, greater inequity= greater dissatisffaction. Inputs and outputs are subjective in each rel, rewards and costs needs to be equal but equity can be restored.
Exchange theory highlights why women stay in abusive relationships. high investments and no alternatives is profitable so remain.
Comparison levels is supported by the way people in relationships evaluate alternatives. Simpson et al:rated opp sex on attractivness. rel= lower. Doesnt highlight why people leaeve with no alternative
Cultural bias: economic theories only apply to western rel (mobile students looking for short term)
Equity theory is an insufficient theory: Ragsdale reject equity as a key determinant in rel satisfaction 'represents an incomplete reasoning of the way in which married people behave' doesnt explain marital maintenance.
Lack of skills: no interpersonal skills
Lack of stimulations: boredom
Maintenance difficulties: added strain, not seeing each other (uni)
Model of breakdown: Rollie and Duck, if one partner is disastisfied notices inequity
Intrapsychic process: brood/ faults, withdraw without discussion
Dyadic process: discuss feelings and future- saved
Social processes: public, friends and fam. seek social support
Grave dressing process: try to justify the break up
Resurrection process: prepare to move on and build upon past mistakes.
Support for lack o skills/ stimulation: undergrads reasons for unfaitful, F= emotion M= sexual, extra marital affairs due to lack of skills and need for stimulation.
Maintenance difficulties does not always lead to breakdown: 70% LDR, 90% LDF. Holt and stone: regular reunited shows little relationship dissatisfaction, todays society+ technology= easier.
Real world applications from lack of social skills and effect: CCET: training programme to improve communication and equity (skills and stimulation) reulting in improved marital satisfaction.
Model is supported by observations in real woorld break-ups: survey of undergrads break up, grave dressing allowed to move on, = unethical, social desireability, no generalisation to older.
Model= pos implications for interventions: intrapsychic= repair, mend before breakdown.
Darwin: traits are selected to enhance reproductive sucess
Intrasexual selection: competition, one sex compete with eachother, success traits passed on..
Inersexual selection: choice, interest in good genes to pass on (tall) look for resources and support.
Short term mating preferences: anisogamy F=choosy fewer gametes. M= impregnante as many as poss, casual sex, lower standards and decrease in attraction after.
Long term mating preferences: high investments, no wasted resources F= want good resources and shows god parenting. M= fertility.
F mating choice varies accross menstrual cycle: long term= feminine faces, short term= during high conception masculine faces, high testosterone to supress immune system and has good genes. Mix mating srategy could account for 9% misattributed fatherhood world wide.
Buss- support diff in sex preferences for long term mates accross cultures. diff cultures men prefer younger women - increased fertility, focus on physical attraction, health and fertility. young are easier to control showing social power. F= good fiinancial prospects and resources. Teenagers attracted to 5yrs older so it isnt down to social power.
Buss- methodological weaknesses: individual and cultural diff, underrepresented rural and less educated. Surveys= not valid. Real life studies= 29 cultures marry younger women- support mate choicec.
Evolutuionary approach is reductionist: reduces partner choice to genes and attractiveness, ignores socio-cultural ideas of choosiness due to gender role socialisation.
Trivers theory: Anisogamy, F= fewer gametes, devote more care so are more sexually discriminating to ensure the best partner.
F= parental certainty, adaptive to have more investment they have large skulls so are born immature unlike animals. Breastfeeding for 4 years in som societies extends childcare showing larger parental contribution
Paternal= obligatory investment, need to protect themsleves from cucoldry ensure no resources are misdirected to non biological relatives.
Emotional Jealousy= M= investing in offspring not their own,F= diverted resources from her and child.Buss= sexual jealousy- M= sexual act risk of cuckoldry F= emotion, loss of resources.
Extramarital affairs support trivers theory: want to ensure good genes. marry for resources and shop around for genes. 14% of population= extra marital affairs.
Women may engage in cuckoldry: additonal support and resources, risk of abandonment and mate retention strategies.
Research shows males do invest: contribute (food) allowing them to live in a healthier environment. Step father and children= Anderson measured investment of resources by fathers and stepfathers showing no discrimination from bio and step = males do invest.
Evolutionary theory is reductionist: EEA no real evidence. PI reduced to evolutionary factors, mens parental behaviour depends on personal and social conditions (rel with mother). Child experiences (divorce) correlate to PI in own children.
Parent child rel: Shaver rel in adulthood is integration of 3 behavioural systems from infancy.
Attachment: Bowlby- internal working model. Rel are accumilation of early attachment styles (secure) Primary attachment figure= IWM
Caregiving system: care for others modelled on PAF = prototype.
Sexuality system: attachment is learnt, avoident attachment may believe sex without love is ok.
Interaction with peers: research showed childhood friendships are a training ground for adult rel, promotes trust and acceptance.
Adolescent relationships: gain diff type of emotion and physical intimacy to parents. Research= dating in adolscence is good for adult rel quality, too much though precits poorer adult rel.
Support for attachment types determining later adult rel: Fraley: meta analysis- correlations of 0.10 -0.50 low correlations as isecure anxious is more unstable, stability is limited attachment type is determined by current relationship thats why married couples are secure. Rel experiences alter attachment type e.g break up shift from secure to insecure.
Childhood abuse shows support for childhood impact: abused= later acted neg towards another person, those who looked similar to abuser showing transference occurs with neg effects on dev of rel.
Determinist: if insecurely attached you can still be happy not doomed to be unhappy in rel.
Neg effects of romantic rel in adolescence: 35% increased deviance school probs (not consistent)
W= urban setting, mobile, voluntary, large potential. NW= restricted tied to factors such as family or economic resources.
W= individualist- freedom and happiness. NW= collectivist- group, encourage interdependence.
(LOVE) Levine: love in marriage- had all ideal qualities but no love would you marry? USA= reluctant only 14% would. Collectivist = higher thailand 34% showing extended family is of greater importance and love is an added bonus.
Loneliness: W= higher, high desire for romance. Research showed Korean students rely on fam to fulfill social network needs. USA= friends and significant others, more reliance on romance.
Arranged marriages have been shown to work: low divorce rates and half have fallen in love. Myers found that in India arranged marriges no diff in marital success to USA.
China showed contrasting evidence: reduced from 70-10% those married for love felt better about their marriage than thise arranged.
Methodological problems: cultural bias, USA= warped sense of reality and repeated exposure= seen as normal and has a diverse effect on future rel. Measures in W not generalised to NW.
love has been highlighted to have evolved to promote survival and reproduction. long term rel show lower mortality rates and higher happiness. 90% of 166 cultures showed evidence of love. showing its importance inn evolutionary explanations throughout cultures.