Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

relationships - Coggle Diagram

- - - - women pick characteristics in a partner that they would like to see in their children to enhance the likelihood of reproductive success
  - - - 10,000 person sample looking at partner preferences across 33 countries
      - women placed greater value on resources, men placed greater value on reproductive capacity
      - this reflects sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy
      - can be applied across different cultures so suggests it is more biological or innate than socially based
    - - preferences have changed dramatically in the last 100 years at least
        
        this develops faster than evolution, so suggests other factors must be at play
      - women are more involved in the workforce so less dependant on men
        
        Bereczkei 1997 suggests this means women are less resource-oriented when looking for a partner
    - - 75% of men, 0% of women said yes to sex on uni campus from stranger
      - shows that females are "choosier" than men due to evolving a different mating strategy (quality over quantity)
      - COUNTERPOINT
        
        female mate preferences change across menstrual cycle (Penton-Voak et al), time, sociocultural influences etc.
    - - lawson et al 2014
        
        found that partner preferences differed in gay men and women the same way as in heterosexual people
- - - - honest sign of genetic fitness
    - - triggers a protective or caring instinct
  - - - found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically competent than unattractive people
      - this is regardless of whether or not they had any expertise or experience in politics
      - this shows the importance of physical attractiveness and how it impacts relationship formation
    - - found evidence to suggest that women with symmetrical and neotenous features were rated as most attractive
      - this occurred across a range of different cultures
      - shows how our views on physical attractiveness are a result of evolution rather than social factors
    - - people on dating sites did not match based on similar levels of attractiveness
        
        important as it measured actual date choice and not just preferences
      - challenges the theory of the matching hypothesis
      - COUNTERPOINT
        
        Feingold (1998)
        
        meta analysis showed that there was a significant correlation between ratings of partners physical attractiveness
        
        taylor's study is a lab experiment so selection may be due to a fantasy
    - - ppts with high sexist attitude scores on the questionnaire were more influenced by physical attractiveness
- - - - causes shame and resentment for the people involved
- - - - a theory suggesting that we seek to gain the most profit with minimal cost within a relationship
        
        very subjective theory- costs and rewards change between partners
        
        costs: time, stress energy, compromise
        
        rewards: sex, companionship, emotional
        
        opportunity cost- investment in "A" means you can't invest in "B"
  - - - looks at whether you could recieve more profits elsewhere
      - to have a satisfactory relationship we have to believe that our relationship is more profitable than the alternatives (Duck 1994)
    - - what you think you deserve in a relationship
        
        based on factors like social norms, media, self esteem, previous relationships and time
  - - - beginning of the relationship where social exchange commences
    - - costs and rewards become more predictable
    - - exploring the costs and benefits of a relationship
    - - terms of relationship are set and partners are settled
  - - - CLalt is a strong predictor of commitment in a relationship and rewards are important as a predictor of satisfaction
      - people appear to base evaluation of romantic relationships on rewards and costs just as the theory suggests
    - - people rarely start assessing relationships before they feel unsatisfied, it only occurs when dissatisfaction is discovered
      - contradicts SET which assumes that assessing profit and loss occurs regardless of satisfaction in the current relationship
    - - equity looks for fairness rather than sameness
      - some people may not be able to achieve sameness due to disabilities but can still contribute in other ways
    - - concepts such as "costs" and "rewards" are difficult to quantify and superficial
      - many people have different views on what a cost and reward is meaning that it is difficult to test in a valid way and could lack external validity
- - - - after leaving their partner, both sides construct a version of why their relationship broke down
      - involves minimising faults and maximising partner's wrongdoing, to try and show themselves as loyal and trustworthy to attract a new partner
    - - where you involve friends and families in the disagreement
      - once the conflict reaches this stage it is much more difficult to mend or save the relationship as friends and families take sides in the relationship, making it more problematic
  - - - where a person admits to themself that they are dissatisfied with a relationship
      - they will spend a lot of time thinking about the reasons for their dissatisfaction and possible ways forward
    - - there are a lot of complaints coming from the partner initiating the breakup and they start to rethink alternatives to the relationship
      - when a person confronts their partner and voices their dissatisfaction
  - - - helps to identify and understand the stages of relationship breakdown and suggest ways of reversing it
      - Duck (1994) suggests that people in stages 1 and 2 could be encouraged to focus on positives of their partner
      - can be used in couples therapy to help resolve relationships
    - - people's memories of events may be distorted or inaccurate, decreasing the reliability of the answers
        
        usually the earlier stages of the relationship
      - almost impossible to study from the point at which problems occur as involvement may make issues worse
      - part of the model ignores how the early stages are distorted so is an incomplete description of relationship breakdown
    - - new stage introduced- "Resurrection stage" (Tashiro and Frazier)
        
        where ex partners turn attention to future relationships using experience from previous
    - - based on relationships from individualist cultures, where the relationship ending is voluntary
        
        divorce and separation carry much less stigma in individualist cultures than collectivist cultures as it is seen as a dishonour to the family or the community
      - it assumes that this model is universal but this might not always be the case
- - - - people tend to view others as more attractive if they share the same core beliefs such as views on career and family
      - Byrne 1997- this is especially important in early stage relationships
    - - this plays a more important role in long term relationships than early stage relationships
      - this refers to each of the partners having some traits that the other lacks so helping each other to fulfil their needs
    - - for example proximity, education level, social class, religion etc
      - people are more likely to build a relationship to those who are geographically close and similar as you have more in common
  - - - many studies have failed to replicate the findings of Kerckhoff and Davis
      - this is due to lack of clarity in long vs short term relationships, different relationships and cultures, and more
    - - Newcomb (1961) found that roommates allocated based on similarity were more likely to form long lasting friendships
      - Winch et a found supporting evidence for the predictions put forward by the filter theory
    - - basing explanations of complex phenomena such as relationships on reductionist research limits the application of the theory
      - it can't explain why people stay in long term relationships despite a lack of complementarity
      - suggests a more holistic approach is needed
- - - - breadth- the outer layers containing general information such as work, hobbies and community
      - depth- the details concerning each of these areas
      - people start with low-risk and general info and as the relationship develops they reveal more and more about each other
  - - - Sprecher and Hendrick 2004
        
        studied hetero dating people and found that perceived satisfaction increased as disclosure increased
      - Laurenceau ea al 2005
        
        perception of disclosure leads to greater feelings of intimacy
    - - there is a link between self disclosure and intimacy, but there is not cause and effect relationship
      - this questions the validity of the theory
      - COUNTERPOINT- despite this, the concept can help in a variety of day to day situations
        
        for example can be used in relationship counselling
    - - men and women in individualist cultures like the USA disclosed more sexual thoughts than those in collectivist cultures like China
      - despite this, both cultures showed high levels of relationship satisfaction
      - suggests that disclosure is not the most important requirement for a successful relationship
    - - when relationships break down disclosure decreases in equity
      - if it doesn't increase satisfaction, what does this suggest?
- - - - Boom and Bust principle- sharing of information tends to be quicker and higher frequency
      - Stranger on a Train- people share more as it is unlikely that you will meet the person in real life so there is less pressure
  - - - Appearance, tone of voice and facial expressions, body language etc
    - - you are unlikely to want to form a relationship with someone who is impersonal or who wants to reveal innermost feelings