UNIT 3 RELATIONSHIPS (PART A)

itsmenickylee
Mind Map by , created over 5 years ago

Mind Map on UNIT 3 RELATIONSHIPS (PART A), created by itsmenickylee on 05/27/2014.

64
1
0
itsmenickylee
Created by itsmenickylee over 5 years ago
Memory - AQA Psychology Unit 1 GCSE
joshua6729
English Language Activity Write Up #2 (completed)
08aliell
Match the Theory to the Theorist - Language Acquisition
08aliell
Language Acquisition Theorists
08aliell
GCSE Computing: Hardware
Yasmin F
Discuss two theories of the breakdown of relationships
a a
Psychology subject map
Jake Pickup
Cells And Cell Techniques - Flashcards (AQA AS-Level Biology)
Henry Kitchen
GCSE AQA Biology - Unit 3
James Jolliffe
UNIT 3 RELATIONSHIPS (PART A)
1 Formation of Romantic Relationships
1.1 The matching hypothesis - Walster et al.
1.1.1 Couples that are romantically attached are similar in terms of physical attractiveness.
1.1.2 Walster proposed a matching hypothesis of why people who are similar end up together.
1.1.2.1 1. The more socially desirable a person is, more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.
1.1.2.2 2. Couples who are attached are more likely to have a happy enduring relationship.
1.1.2.3 Testing the Matching Hypothesis
1.1.2.3.1 Walster - Computer Dance Study
1.1.2.3.1.1 Men & women bought tickets for a dance and completed a detailed questionnaire about themselves. A computer supposedly made ideal matches. In fact students rated for attractiveness and assigned randomly.
1.1.2.3.1.1.1 Researcher wanted to know how many would as for a 2nd date and on what basis. Results showed most important was factor was partners physical attractiveness.
1.1.2.3.1.1.1.1 If we settle for value match then only those matched by chance with date with similar attractiveness would be asked on 2nd date.
1.1.2.3.1.1.1.1.1 Men acted on selfishness - more attractive the woman the more possibility would be asked out again - regardless of mans own attractiveness.
1.1.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 MATCHING HYPOTHESIS CONTRADICTED.
1.1.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Complex Matching
1.1.2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Hatfield & Sprecher - People offer many characteristics, perhaps compensating for lack of physical attractiveness, status, money. E.G. Older successful wealthy man pairs with younger attractive woman.
1.1.3 Individuals will be influenced by:
1.1.3.1 A. Desirability of potential match
1.1.3.1.1 Walster: referred notion as realistic choices, individuals influenced by the chances of affection reciprocated
1.1.3.2 B. Probability of other person saying yes
1.1.3.2.1 Murstein: Argues initial attraction depends on available cues (physical attractiveness). Initial attraction should therefore be determined largely by the comparison between attractiveness.
1.1.4 Gender Differences: Physical attractiveness is valued more by men, and vice versa, and so has less of an impact on the perception of mens social desirability. Implies men can compensate deficit in physical attractiveness with other qualities.
1.1.5 Role of 3rd Parties: Matching is sometimes influenced by family & friends.
1.1.5.1 Hatfield & Sprecher: likely these 3rd parties would consider compatibility because they determine who will make suitable matches. E.G. Arranged marriages.
1.2 Reward/Need satisfaction model - Byrne + Clore
1.2.1 Model suggests we are attracted to people we find satisfying/gratifying to be with. The things we find rewarding tend to be things that are unmet (need for company, financial support). Mutual attraction occurs when parter meets these needs.
1.2.2 Rewards & Punishments
1.2.2.1 Rewarding stimuli = Positive feelings. Punishment = Negative Feelings
1.2.2.1.1 Following stimuli as people, some make us happy and some do not.
1.2.2.2 Based on Operant Conditioning, more likely to repeat behaviour that leads to desirable outcome. Thus, we enter relationships because individuals is directly associated with reinforcement (positive feeling).
1.2.3 Griffit & Guay
1.2.3.1 Participants evaluated on a creative task and then asked how much they like the experimenter. Scores were highest when the experimenter has positively evaluated the participants performance.
1.2.4 Foa & Foa
1.2.4.1 Argued that rewards can also include sex, status, love, help, money. These are rewarding because they meet our various social needs. E.g obtaining approval of others satisfies our need for self esteem.
1.2.5 Cultural Differences
1.2.5.1 Theory does not account for cultural and gender differences. Lott suggests in other cultures women are more focussed on needs of others rather than receiving reinforcement.
1.2.6 Mundane Realism
1.2.6.1 Most studies are lab studies, therefore not it is hard to apply the model to real life. However studies by Caspi & Herbener on real life couples have supported these claims.
2 Maintenance of Romantic Relationships
2.1 Social Exchange Theory - Thibaut & Kelley
2.1.1 Profit & Loss
2.1.1.1 Centre of theory is the assumption that all social behaviour is a series of exchanges; maximise rewards, minimise costs.
2.1.1.1.1 People exchange resources with the expectation they will receive a profit.
2.1.1.1.1.1 Rewards - Costs = Outcome (profit/loss)
2.1.1.1.1.1.1 In line with other economic theories of human behaviour, stresses that commitment to a relationship is dependant on the probability of this outcome.
2.1.1.2 The notion of exchange used to explain why women stay in abusive relationships.
2.1.1.2.1 Martz argues when investment is high and alternatives are low, this could still be considered a profit situation, and stay in relationship.
2.1.2 Comparison Level
2.1.2.1 In order to judge whether on person offers something better or worse that we might expect from another.
2.1.2.1.1 Kelley - Developed Comparison Level
2.1.2.1.1.1 A standard against which all our relationships are judged.
2.1.2.1.1.2 CL is the product of our experiences of relationships and what we might expect from this particular exchange. If we judge potential profit exceeds CL, relationship is worthwhile.
2.1.2.1.1.2.1 Thibaut & Kelley - Proposed Comparison Level for Alternatives
2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 Person weighs up potential increase in rewards from different partner, music any costs from ending current relationship.
2.1.2.1.1.3 Simpson et al - Participants asked to rate members of opposite sex based on attractiveness.
2.1.2.1.1.3.1 Participants already in relationships gave lower ratings.
2.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 However, Social Exchange Theory does not explain why some people leave relationships despite not having any alternatives.
2.1.3 Criticised for focussing too much on the individuals perspective and ignoring social aspects of relationships. E.G. how partners communicate and interpret shared events
2.1.3.1 Duck & Sants
2.1.4 MAIN CRITICISM: Selfish nature of theory. Are people only motivated to maintain relationships out of selfish concerns? Such principles may only apply in individualistic cultures, if at all.
2.1.5 IDA
2.1.5.1 Moghaddam: suggests economic theory only applies to western relationships and even only to certain short term relationships among individuals with high mobility (Students) in western societies.
2.1.5.2 In short term relationships, it makes sense to be concerned with give and take.
2.1.5.2.1 However, in long term relationships within less mobile populations groups, are more likely to value security than personal profit.
2.2 Equity Theory - Walster et al
2.2.1 Hatfield et al extended the Exchange Theory to include an emphasis on fairness and equity.
2.2.1.1 Equity Theory: people expect to receive rewards form a relationship which are proportional to the rewards they provide.
2.2.1.1.1 It is assumed that imbalance can be tolerated if the two people accept the situation.
2.2.1.1.1.1 Individuals try to maximise rewards and reduce costs. There is negotiation to produce fairness. E.G. one may do shopping every week to compensate for being away playing sports.
2.2.1.1.1.1.1 If relationship is unfair or inequitable, produces stress.
2.2.2 Hatfield et al - asked newlyweds to indicate if they felt they were receiving more or less than they should in view of what they were contributing to their marriage.
2.2.2.1 Were also asked to indicate their level of contentment, happiness, anger and guilt.
2.2.2.1.1 Under benefitted lowest level of overall satisfaction with marriage and tended to experience anger. Over benefitted cam next, and those who perceived marriage as equitable had highest level of satisfaction.
2.2.2.1.1.1 Men who are over benefitted were almost as satisfied as those in equitable marriage. But over benefitted women were less satisfied then women with equal benefits.
2.2.3 Exchange & Communal Relationships
2.2.3.1 Clark & Mills - Disagreed with the claim that all relationships are based on economics.
2.2.3.1.1 Distinguished difference between exchange relationships and communal relationships.
2.2.3.1.1.1 Exchange relationships may involve keeping track of rewards/costs, communal relationships are governed by desire to respond to the needs of the partner.
2.2.3.1.1.1.1 Still some concern with equity but partners believe things balance out in the long run.
2.3 IDA
2.3.1 GENDER DIFFERENCES
2.3.1.1 Men & Women may judge equity differently
2.3.1.1.1 Steil + Weltman
2.3.1.1.1.1 In married couples, husbands who earned more rated their own careers more important that their wives, and wives agreed.
2.3.1.1.1.1.1 However, situation were wives income was higher neither rated career as more important.
2.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Researchers concluded that wives tendency to seek less for themselves than comparable men making comparable contributions, impeded the achievement of equality at home.
3 Breakdown of Romantic Relationships
3.1 Rollie & Duck - Model of Breakdown
3.1.1 Rollie and Duck’s model of breakdown attempts to explain the process in six steps.
3.1.2 It begins with dissatisfaction with how a relationship is conducted
3.1.2.1 Leads to an intrapsychic process that is characterised by brooding on the partner’s faults and the costs of the relationship
3.1.2.1.1 In the dyadic process, people confront their partners and discuss their feelings about the relationship
3.1.2.1.1.1 If further breakdown occurs, social processes will take place, whereby friends and family will offer advice and support.
3.1.2.1.1.1.1 After having left the relationship, grave-dressing processes will commence. Tidying up memories.
3.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 In the final resurrection process, each partner prepares for new relationships by learning from the mistakes of the prior relationship.
3.1.3 Tashiro & Frazier surveyed students whose relationships had recently broken down
3.1.3.1 They reported to have experienced emotional distress as well as personal growth, stating that these breakdowns had given them a clearer idea about future relationships
3.1.3.1.1 This provides evidence supporting the grave-dressing and resurrection processes.
3.1.3.1.2 However, a methodological flaw. Sample Bias only sample of undergraduate students, findings cannot be generalised to other relationships. This reduces the population validity of the study.
3.1.4 Deterministic, but fails to take into account any other factors such as choice of breaking up and how we act after the break-up. Ignores the role of free will.
3.1.5 Psychologists praised the theory for being intuitively appealing. The theory makes logical sense in suggesting that people experience different emotions and behaviour during a breakdown. Considers individual differences.
3.2 Duck - Reasons for Breakdown
3.2.1 Duck proposed three reasons as to why relationships break down.
3.2.2 Lack of skills: A partner may lack the interpersonal skills to make the relationship mutually satisfying. They may be a poor conversationalist, poor at indicating their interest in their partner, or their interactions with other people may be generally unrewarding.
3.2.3 Lack of stimulation: A lack of stimulation may be boredom or a belief that the relationship is not going anywhere, and this may result in breakdown.
3.2.4 In some circumstances, relationships may become strained due to maintenance difficulties: the partners do not see each other often enough.
3.2.5 Boekhout et al - Extramarital Affairs
3.2.5.1 Asked undergraduates to rate various reasons for a partner to be unfaithful in a relationship. Partners judged that boredom & lack of attention to be among the most likely reasons.
3.2.5.1.1 Shows how affairs may be the result of a perceived lack of skills and/or stimulation and thus supporting Duck's theory.
3.2.6 Long-distance relationships can be the cause of maintenance difficulties
3.2.6.1 However, Holt & Stone found that there was little decrease in relationship satisfaction as long as the lovers are able to reunite regularly.
3.2.6.1.1 This suggests that long-distance relationships may not lead to breakdown as Duck’s explanation would suggest. However, this may be partly due to the increased accessibility to technology which allows long-distance partners to communicate fully.
3.2.7 GENDER DIFFERENCES
3.2.7.1 Women are more likely to stress unhappiness & incompatibility as reasons for break-up, while men are more upset with sexual withholding. Women also have more desire to remain friends after the breakup, while men prefer to cut losses

Media attachments