THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS
STATES THAT WE DO NOT LOOK FOR THE MOST PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE PERSON , BUT SOMEONE WHO MATCHES OUR OWN LEVEL PHYSICAL ATTRACTION
two Reasons why :
- scared of rejection / will be insecure in the relationship
- dissatisfied /constantly looking for someone better
Reduced attractiveness in 1 person can be compensated for by increased intelligience or another attribute valued by the partner . e.g fame and money
MH -RESEARCH 1
Research : WALSTER ET AL
- advertised in local newspaper
- American students -volunteer sample
- asked students to rate partners selected for them during a dance in freshers week
- questionaire before
- thought they were paired on similar interests -actually randomly allocated
- four independant judges assessed both of their physical attractiveness
- questionaire during on dance and date
- FINDING MOST LIKING WAS EXPRESSED FOR THE MOST ATTRACTIVE PARTNERS. also more eager to be seen again.
MH -RESEARCH 2
Research :WALSTER AND WALSTER
- but met before hand
- finding: MOST LIKING EXPRESSED FOR THOSE OF SIMILAR ATTRACTIVENESS TO THEMSELVES
- REDUCTIONIST - reduces the complex behaviour of love and relationships simply to the attractiveness of the other person . Ignores arranged mariiages,blind people,perception and personality.
- DETERMINIST-claims we have no control over our behaviour as we naturally choose someone of similar attractivness
- ETHICAL ISSUES- informed consent ,deception and protection of participants
- UNREALISTIC-snapshot of relationship not real account of a relationship ecological validit, hardly knew one another
- SAMPLE BIAS
Sociobiology theory 1
this is an EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF ATTRACTION.
States that we show adaptive behaviour for example, that either helps us to survive or succesfully reproduce , so our genes will continue to future generations
Claim that INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION IS CENTRED ON LOOKS.
we are attracted to features that indicate good health and youth as tie in with the ability to succesfully reproduce .
In order for our genes to survive we need to select a mate with strong genes as going to mix with our to fomr offspring
the healthier our offspring the better chance of survival to maturity
the more physically attractive our offspring the better chance of attracting a mate and successfully reproducing.
Sociobiology theory 2
FEMALES-large breasts,wide hips,small waist= good child bearing potential
MALES- qualities that show he will be an effective hunter and control of resoucres- athletic body
Sociobiology theory -evalaution 1
- HALO EFFECT- says we judge people on their physical appearance and assume they are good to mate with
- REDUCTIONIST-reduces complex bahviour of love simply to selecting a mate who is good to mate with
- DETERMINISTIC-says we have no control as we cannot control our looks so mnay of us would be at a disadvantage
- INDIVIDUAL DIFFERANCES-claims that these features should be consistant across all cultrures
- IGNORES homosexuals
- just because the partners are good looking doesnt mean offspring will
- IGNORES that other factors are accounted for too such as personality
Sociobiology theory -evalaution 2
- 37 cultures in 33 countries
- 10,000 + participants
- rate various factors (age socibility intelligience) accroding to how important thought they were for an sexual partner
- FINDINGS- MEN VIEWED PHYSICAL APPEARANCE MORE IMPORTANT, WOMEN VALUED HIGH OCCUPATIONAL STAUS AND GOOD EARNING POWER , ALL CULTURES THOUGHT MEN SHOULD BE OLDER
formation and maintenance of relationships 1
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY - THIBAUT AND KELLEY
individuals engaged in relationships are motivated to MAXIMISE their REWARDS (affection,sex,companionship) and MINIMISE their COSTS (financial and emotional of other partner)
SUCESSFULL RELATIONSHIP= Rewards minus Costs still equate to a postive outsome for each partner
recognised importance of our future relationships depending on expectations of previous relationships
To assess whether one indidvidual offers something better or worse than another we develop COMPARISON LEVELS upon which we judge our relationship
Comparison level- comparison of rewards and cost in current relationship to what we have been used to in previours . If compare well motivated to STAY.
formation and maintenance of relationships 2
COMPARISON LEVEL FOR ALTERNATIVES- possible alternative relationshops we could be . Compare current realtionship with ones we could be in . If dont compare well the relationship will END.
4 STAGE MODEL
SAMPLING- consider rewards and costs of new relationships and compare to other availiable
BARGAINING-as relationship develop . partners give and recieve rewards= tests whether deeper relationship worthwhile
COMMITMENT-as predictability increases in relationship. partners know how to extract rewards from one another so costs are lowered.
INSTITUTIONALISATION-as couple settles down norms are exstablished in relation to rewards and costs of relationship
Social exchange theory research
RUSBALT AND MARTZ
argue women STAY in ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS as their INVESTMENT IS HIGH (children place to live ) but the COSTS OF LEAVING ARE HIGHER (losing house no money) so argued still in RELATIONSHIP PROFIT . losing much more by leaving.
EQUITY THOERY WALSTER ET AL 1
EQUITY THEORY -THIBAUT AND KELLEY
people strive for EQUITY IN RELATIONSHIP and feel UNHAPPY and DISTRESSED if they percieve their relationship to be UNFAIR.
an economic theory like social exchange theory but people strive for fairness in relationship not just for personal gain.
predict that not only the underbenefited may be unhappy but also the over benefited.
what is considered to be fair in a relationship is largerly the subjective opinion of each partner.
PROBLEMS WITH RELATIONSHIP RESEARCH
- ETHNOCENTRIC- most reserahc was carried out in the west ,specifcallt north america
- CULTURALLY RELATIVE- what is considered to be attractive in one culture may differ from another in terms of relationship and love e.g arranged marriages
- TOO MUCH FOCUS ON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS- as in the west high value is placed on romantic love especially when considering marriage.
- RESEARCH TOO RESTRICTIVE- as arteficial only a snapshot of relationships so ecological validity can be questioned.
- IGNORES HOMOSEXUAL AND NON ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS- e.g impact of 3rd parties onr elationships such as freinds and family.
EQUITY THOERY WALSTER ET AL 2
RESEARCH- BUUNK AND VAN YPEREN
married couples who perceieved their relationship to be equitable were most content
those who felt underbenefited wre least satisfied
evidence showed - some women who felt underbenefited would restore equity by having an affair
LOVE AND BREAKDOWN
HAZAN AND SHAVER -LOVE AS AN ATTACHMENT PROCESS
thoery uses ideas from ATTACHMENT THEORY in DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY.
BOWLBY AND AINSWORTH believed that early attachment was important for the development of the internal working model of relationships for later life
States that first key relationship you have with your primary attachment figure will lead the infant to expect that later love relationships will follow in the same pattern
attachment type will determine how you love how you feel and how you behave in adult relationships
Hazan and shaver believe that later love relationships should be predictable from the knowledge of an individuals attachment type.
STERNBERGS TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE
STERNBERGS TRIANGULAR THEORY
argued that love consists of three components
- intimacy- feeling of closeness that exist between two people
- passion- drive that leads to romantic attraction and sexual or physical involvement
- commitment- the decision to stay with this partner and forego similar relationships with other potential partners
most balanced and ideal love = has all three components similrly intense
if one or more missing less ideal sort of love exists
7 types of love
consummate(all three components) perfect and complete love, romantic (preoccupied by love , idealisitic but impractical and short lived passion and intimacy) , empty (hollow little meaning), fatous ,infatous,liking,companionate
From the time we are born we develop expectations of what we believe love should be throuhg our parents ,tv , films etc
sternberg interviewed students on their expectations of romantic love and indentified 25 common stories used to describe love:
fairytale- prince and princess
gardening- any relationship left unattended will not survive
mystery-falling in love with handsome stranger
he believed that each of us had two different triangles one that represents our ideal relationship based on our thoery of love the other charchterises our current relationship
if current and ideal different then constantly looking for something more
if ideal traingle both the same for each partner better love but if three componenets different=problems
- developed through indepth and extensive interviews
- sample bias students at yale university ethnocentric sample
- explains diff types of love
- explains where we get our ideas of love from
- helps if people have difficulties in relationship can see which componenet needs work
- happy couples had similar stories and ideals of love supports but not conclusive
- acknowledges individual differances
- culturally biased - expectations of love and relationships differ from culture to culture e.g arrnaged marriages
- passion doesnt exist in some cultures. 25 common stories only relevant to some cultures
- FEHR-same study describing love found similar ermergent categories to sternbergs three componenets of love
HATSFIELD AND WALSTER THREE FACTOR THEORY OF LOVE
HATSFIELD AND WALSTER THREE FACTOR THEORY OF LOVE
argue love a cognitive label placed on physiological arousal
three factors needed for love to occur
- physiological arousal
- appropriate love object
- cultural exposure
RESEARCH:DUTTON AND ARON
LOVE ON A SUSPENSION BRIDGE
four conditions:female high bridge -all three factors apparent,female low bridge-just appropriate love object,male high bridge-no appropraite love object,male low bridge-netiher present
female confederate asked a male on a pedestrain bridge for help with survery.she gave her number afterwards and told them to call if they had any queries about the survery. Findings were that men were much more likely to call back when on a swaying 450ft suspension bridge then when on a concrete sturdy bridge
SUPPORTS AS IF ATLEAST ONE FACTOR MISSING LESS MEN CALLED.
EVALUATION OF HATSFIELD AND WALSTER
assumes appropriate love object
assumes calling means that they love her
very shallow view on love , looks at it as a cognitive label , physiologiical arousal and cultural expectations of love
doesnt account for individual differances
very unrealisitc - never happens in real life
doesnt explain why
doesnt explain different types of love
cant be applied to other cultures as diff expectations of love e.g romantic love not really appparent in non western
not very helpful
DUCK- two causes of relationship breakup are
predisposing factors (internal) such as frequent close proximity can reveal behaviours that another partner finds irratating
precipitating factors (external) such as rivalry , working hours preventing you from seeing each other etc.
4 stage model:
intra psychic phase- one partner becomes increasingly dissatidfied with relationship but does not discuss feelings
dyadic phase-confronting partner with negative feelings and trying to come to some arrangement whether relationship can be repaires
social phase- if these are unresolved relationship split is made official to family and freinds
grave dressing- partners try to communicate an effective socially acceptable rationale for dissolution of relationship
- views breakup as a process which is realistic as rarely a relationship ends
- suggests in what stages certain behaviours can be used to try and restore relationship e.g intra psychic think of positive traits of partner social- help from freinds or family or counseeling
- doesnt explain why breakups happen
- la gaipa- supporting eveidence said that it was found thhat when relationship over try to keep our social credit intact by taking little or no personal blame for breakup . try to leave relationship without damaging reputation supports grave dressing
- de la ronde and swann- found that misinterperting ambigious event negatively and expecting worse to happen in the relationship was also a cause for the disintergration of relationship
brehm-women more likely to state unhappiness and incompatiblity as a reason for breakup whereas men were particularly upset by sexual withholding
brehm and kassin-women report more problems in romantic relationships and the degree of female dissatisfaction is a better predictor than mens unhappiness of whether the relationship will end.
lees model of dissolution
5 stage model :
dissatisfaction-one on both partners find real issues in relationship and feel dissatisfied
eposure- expose of negative thoughts
negotiation- exposure of negative feelings may lead to negotiation wth partner through discussion
resolve-may attempt to resolve problems in n
termination-attempts to resolve- fail relationship is terminated
e and n most couples found it most intense and emotionally exhausting and neg aspects of whole exp
there were couples who scipped intermittent stages
Evaluation of lee's model
- process that goes throuhg a number of stages realistic
- doesnt explain why
- concentrates on most painful aspects of relationshios e.g the early stages in his model doesnt suggest feelings of partners fater breakup.
- LEE'S SURVEY 112 premarital couple sugested that breakup is not a single event but happens over a period of time positive of sutdy extensive and indepth interviews but sample bias
- application can help people in relationships e.g where counseeling can be used
- ignores individual differances