Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

relationships - Coggle Diagram

- - - - i.e. low self esteem = fell worth a lot less
        high self esteem = worth a lot more
  - - - sampling stage - exploration of costs and rewards through experimenting in the relationship/observing others
      - bargaining stage - beginning of a relationship, when partners start to exchange costs and rewards
      - commitment stage - sources of costs and rewards become more predictable, relationship becomes more stable as costs lessen and rewards increase
      - institutionalism stage - rewards and costs are now firmly established
  - - - e.g. someone may feel that praise from their partner is a valuable reward, whereas their partner may not find it that significant
      - these values may also change over the course of the relationship
    - - there is also another type of cost: opportunity cost
        
        this is when all resources are being invested in one relationship, you may miss out on investing them elsewhere
  - - - the CLalt we develop depends on the state of our current relationship
      - if costs outweigh benefits in current relationship, alternatives now seem more attractive
      - if relationship is satisfactory, alternatives may not even be on the table
  - - - subjective
        
        P: what is classed as costs and rewards are very subjective
        
        E: e.g. company may be more important to a 'sugar daddy' than the money he is paying
        
        E: something that may be a reward for one person in a relationship may not be very valuable for the other person - this does not balance out in the relationship
        
        L: weakness of the theory as one person may be missing out on rewards while the other values them, meaning the satisfaction levels are uneven
- - - - however also introduced another factor - investment; the extent and importance of resources that have been put into the relationship
  - - - resources that we put directly into a relationship; e.g. time, effort, money, possessions, self-disclosures
    - - resources that were not previously in the relationship but are now closely associated with - what the couple can get out of the relationship
        
        this includes possessions bought together, shared memories, mutual friendships developed together (after the relationship developed) and children
  - - - carried out a meta-analysis - reviewed 52 studies from the late 70s to late 90s
      - 11,000 pps in 5 countries
      - found that satisfaction, CLalt and investment all predict commitment in a relationship
      - when commitment levels were high, the relationship lasted longer and were stable
      - increased validity for rustbalt's claims
      - also applies to multiple cultures as carried out in a variety of countries
- - - - male gametes
        
        small
        
        highly mobile
        
        created in vast numbers - puberty to old age
      - female ova
        
        relatively large
        
        produced at intervals
        
        limited
        
        invest more
    - - procedure
        
        survey of 10,000 adults in 33 countries
        
        asked questions related to age and attributes that are predicted to be important partner preferences
        
        according to the evolutionary theory
      - findings
        
        female respondents put greater emphasis on resource-related attributes
        
        e.g. financial stability, ambition, industriousness
        
        males put more emphasis on looks and chastity, and also preferred younger partners than females did
      - conclusion
        
        these reflect sex differences in mating strategies due to anisogamy
        
        support predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory
      - c/c
        
        applies to a vast number of cultures
        
        carried out in 33 countries - avoids cultural bias
  - - - preference determines what features will be passed on to their offspring
    - - aim
        
        to see which gender is more likely to agree to sex w/ a stranger
      - procedure
        
        male and female psych students sent around campus
        
        individually approaches a stranger and asks standardised question "ive seen you around campus. I find you attractive. Would you like to go to bed with me tonight?"
      - results
        
        not a single female student agreed
        
        75% of male students agreed - immediately
      - conclusion
        
        suggests women are 'chosier' than men when it comes to picking sexual partners
        
        this therefore supports the evolutionary theory
  - - - if they 'win' they can pass on their genes
    - - aim
        
        to see whether males prefer a certain female body type
      - findings
        
        female body type is not their concern but it is the hip to waist ratio that they look for
        
        usually they find any hip or waist size attractive as long as the ratio between the two is 0.7
      - conclusion
        
        they find this attractive because it is an 'honest signal' that the woman is fertile but not yet pregnant
- - - - includes thoughts and feelings
  - - - superficial
      - low risk
      - small bits of info
    - - intimate
      - high risk
      - detailed info
    - - i.e. breadth=breadth
      - depth = depth
  - - - research support :) - spreacher and hendrick (2004)
        
        P: spreacher and hendrick suggested that if exchange of info was reciprocal, they would be more satisfied and more committed to the relationship
        
        E: this means that if both partners reciprocated the sharing of info, there would be higher levels of satisfaction in their relationship
        
        E: studied het dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure
        
        L: this is therefore a strength of breadth and depth as it shows that when the sharing of info is reciprocal, satisfaction levels are higher
        
        c/c: methodology :(
        
        self report method
        
        vulnerable to social desirability
        
        threatens internal validity - results could be impacted by what the pps think is socially acceptable and not actually state their true views
    - - cultural differences :( - tang et al.
        
        P: difference in the way self disclosure occurs in different cultures
        
        E: tang et al. reviewed literature regarding sexual self disclosure
        
        found that Americans are more likely to disclose more sexual info (i.e. thoughts and feelings) than Chinese participants
        
        E: this shows the difference between individualist (USA) and collectivist (China) cultures in self disclosure
        
        L: this is therefore a limitation of self-disclosure as it does not consider how relationships develop through self-disclosure in a variety of cultures and is therefore also a limitation of many western studies and theories being applied universally
      - real life application :) - hass and stafford
        
        P: strength of self-disclosure is that it has real life application
        
        E: hass and stafford aimed to see if self-disclosure could help communication in a relationship
        
        found that 57% of gay men and women in their studies said that open and honest self-disclosure helped to maintain and deepen their relationships
        
        E: this suggests that if less skilled partners - those whose communication consists of 'small talk' - were to learn to use self-disclosure more, it would bring many benefits to their relationships
        
        L: this is therefore a strength of self-disclosure as it demonstrates the value of psychological impacts on society
        
        c/c: weakness :( - individual differences; some people have experienced trauma in their lives, which makes it difficult for them to disclose information