Relationships Cheat Sheet PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

Relationships Cheat Sheet Intersexual selection . Intrasexual selection .

Females, quality over quantity. Select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources. Ova much rarer than sperm, females make the biggest investment when choosing a sexual partner. Male, quantity over quality. Mate with as many females as possible for reproductive success. Larger males are more likely to reproduce than smaller males. Males may act aggressively to acquire females and protect them from other males.

Male gametes (sperm) Small, mobile, created continuously, does not require a lot of energy to produce.

Anisogamy Difference between sex cells of males and females.

Female Gametes (ova) large, static, limited quantity, require greater amount of energy to produce.

AO3 – Research support for anisogamy. Buss (1989) – survey 10,000 people, 33 countries, questions relating to age and attributes. Females = resourcerelated. Males = reproductive capacity. Research support for inter-sexual selection. Clark and Hatfield (1989) – University campus, male and female students asked ‘would you go to bed with me?’. 0% female students agreed, 75% male students agreed.

Breadth and depth of selfdisclosure. (Altman and Taylor)

Self-Disclosure Revealing personal information about yourself. As relationship develops, more information is revealed.

Reciprocity of self-disclosure. Reis and Shaver (1988) In order for relationship to develop there must be reciprocity.

3rd Filter Complementary. Meet each others needs. Have traits the other lacks. Important for long term.

As both breadth and depth increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other. Information disclosed at the start of relationship is relatively superficial.

Social Penetration Theory (Altman and Taylor). Selfdisclosure is a gradual process. As one partner reveals personal information, it displays trust and the other partner will also reveal personal information.

Real-life applications.

Physical Attractiveness Shakelford and Larson (1997) – symmetrical faces are more attractive. McNulty (2008) physical attractiveness also an important factor several years into a relationship.

Halo Effect. 1St Filter – Social Demography. Geographical location, social class, level of education and ethnic group. Most meaningful interactions are with people who live nearby.

Filter Theory Kerckhoff and Davis (2962) compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term relationships. Devised filter theory. Start off with a field of available, however not everyone in the field is desirable, and so we narrow down to a field of desirables through three filters.

Research support. Palmer and Peterson nd 2 (2012) Filter –physically Similarity in attitudes. Partners maypeople share important attractive rated beliefs. Similarity as being more of attitudes important forinformed short term politically and couples. competent than unattractive people.

Support

Matching Hypothesis.

Cultural Differences.

Sprecher and Hendrick (2004), correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure. Hass and Stafford (1998) 57% gay men and women = honest selfdisclosure was key in maintaining committed relationships. Tang (2013) USA (individualistic) disclosed more about sexual feelings than in China (collectivist)

Dion et al (1972) – people who were rated as being more attractive were also rated as having desirable characteristics such as being kind, strong, sociable and successful. Belief that these attractive people have these characteristics will make them even more attractive. Walster et al (1966) We cant all form relationships with the most attractive people and so people will choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to themselves. Although we desire the most attractive partner, we fear the rejection from someone who is ‘out of our league’.

Relationships Cheat Sheet Support.

Failure to replicate.

Lack of temporal validity.

Rusbult’s Investment Model. Commitment to a relationship depends on three factors. Satisfaction, comparison level and investment size.

Satisfaction/comparison with alternatives. Satisfaction based on the concept of comparison level (CL). Relationship is satisfying if rewards outweigh the costs.

Accommodation Willingness to Sacrifice Forgiveness Positive Illusions Ridiculing Alternatives.

Assumes key factors in relationship change over time. Winch (1958) – Similarities in personality, interests and attitudes are typical at start of relationship. Levinger (1974) many studies have failed to replicate the original findings. Due to social changes over time and the subjectivity of how long a long term relationship is. Online dating = less importance of social demography filter.

Social Exchange Theory. Thibault and Kelley (1959), theory of maintaining relationship. Act out of self-interest, exchanging rewards and costs. Rewards exceed costs and alternate relationships are less attractive than current relationship.

Comparison Level

Stages of relationship development. Sampling Stage

Bargaining Stage Commitment Stage Institutionalisation Stage Investment Size Extent and importance of resources associated with relationship. Anything lost if relationship ends.

Experimenting with rewards and costs in own relationship or observing others. Romantic partners begin exchanging rewards and costs. Sources of rewards and costs become more predictable, costs lessen, and rewards increase. Settled – rewards and costs firmly established.

Comparison Level for alternatives.

The amount of profit you think you deserve to get, based off of past experiences, also by the media such as books, films and TV. Someone with a low self esteem will have a low comparison level. Looking at other alternatives to see if we would receive greater rewards and fewer costs. Duck (1994), CLait heavily dependent on current relationship state. If rewards outweigh the costs, we feel satisfied and may not even consider alternatives.

Equity Theory Equity = fairness. Walster et al (1978). Both partners profit levels are roughly the Intrinsic Investment – Resources we put directly same.into EQUITY DOES NOT MEAN relationship. Eg money and possessions. Also EQUALITY. energy, emotion and self-disclosure. Extrinsic Investment – resources that did not exist until later in the relationship. Things brought together, children.

Lack of equity leads to one partner either underbenefiting or one partner overbenefiting. Underbenefited partner may feel anger, hostility and resentment. Overbenefiting partner may feel guilt, discomfort or shame.

Rewards Costs

Profit

Artificial Research.

Subjectivity Ignores equity.

Consequences of inequality. Problems arise when one partner puts a lot into a relationship but gets little from it. Will becomes dissatisfied. Greater the inequity, greater the dissatisfaction (strong correlation between the two).

Companionship, sex, emotional support. Money, time, stress, energy, compromise, opportunity cost (investment of time and energy that could have been used elsewhere) We feel as if we are profiting from our current relationship when the rewards outweigh the costs.

Majority of studies examining SET used artificial tasks, more realistic studies do not support idea of SET. What is costly to one person may not be costly to another person. Ignores one crucial factor in relationships – fairness. Limited explanation.

Relationships Cheat Sheet

Changes in perceived equity.

Dealing with inequity.

Most dissatisfied is the change in the level of equity as time goes on. Start of relationship=contribute more. If relationship continues like this, we may feel dissatisfied. When there is inequity, partners will work to make the relationship more equitable if they believe the relationship is salvageable. Another way to deal with inequity is to revise perceptions of costs and rewards so that the relationship feels more equitable to them....