Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

AQA A2 Psychology: Relationships

Terms in this set (27)

Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory
We form relationships to receive rewards/reinforcement that satisfy our social needs. Being in a relationship is positively reinforced bc it is rewarding.
Byrne and Clore 1970
Reinforcement-Affect theory suggests both operant and classical conditioning play a part in relationships. We learn to associate people with positive situations
Thibaut and Kelly 1959
Social exchange theory suggests people try to maximise rewards and minimise costs. If the relationship is to continue we should end up in profit - "cost benefit". But this may end up being an unequal relationship
Comparison Level
We develop a standard which we compare all our relationships against eg, experience, views, profit
Walster et al 1978
Equity theory. People expect relationships to be fair and equal. They want to receive rewards that are in balance with what they give to the other person. If a relationship is unequal it produces discomfort and distress
Yum et al 2009
Looked at hetro romantic relationships in 6 different cultures and found cultural factors had little effect
Canary and Stafford 1992
Devised RMSM and found a link between degree of perceived equity and prevalence of maintenance strategies implying equitable relationships are maintained
Hatfield et al 1979
Asked newlyweds to assess what they and their partner contributed to the relationship and their level of contentment. Least satisfied were those who were under benefited and the next least satisfied were those who over benefited. Equal relationships were most satisfactory
Argyle 1988
Found sex differences. Over benefited men were almost as satisfied as those in equal marriages. But over benefited women were much less satisfied than women in equal relationships
Sedikides 2005
Claimed people are capable of being unselfish and doing things for others without expecting anything in return
Hoschchild and Machung 1989
Found women do most of the work to make relationships equitable suggesting theory is not applicable to both genders
Duck 1988
4 Phase Model:
•Intrapsychic phase-one partner becomes privately dissatisfied with the relationship
•Dyadic phase-confronts partner about dissatisfaction
•Social phase-break up is made public. Implications are discussed
•Grave dressing-organise lives post relationships. Tell own side of story
Duck 2001
Proposed 3 categories for breakups
•Pre existing doom
•Mechanical failure-naturally grow apart
•Sudden death-discovery of betrayal/infidelity leads to immediate termination of a relationship
Kassin 1996
Found women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution while men blame lack of sex
Akert 1992
Found people who instigate the break up suffers fewer negative consequences than the non-instigator
Problems with Ducks model
Does not take into account why dissatisfaction occurs in the first place
Stages might not occur in order/at all
Simplistic-does not account for friendships/casual affairs
Lee 1984
Proposed 5 stage model of relationship dissolution
Dissatisfaction in one or both partner
Exposure of the dissatisfaction
Negotiation of the problems
Resolution attempts to solve the problems
Termination of the relationship if no resolution
Puts emphasis on early stages where relationship can be saved
Rusbult Investment Model of Relationships 1988
Introduces a new concept - investment further increases commitment. Outcomes compared to personal standard. If an attractive alternative exists they may pursue this. Investment
Sexual Selection
The process through which men and women attempt to maximise chances of reproductive success
Intrasexual selection
Mate competition - males compete and the winner is rewarded with the female
Intersexual selection
Mate choice - males compete for the attention of females
Buss 1989
Questionnaires were used to collect data from over 10,000 men and women from 37 different cultures. Found women value resources more highly than men, who prefer variables associated with reproductive capacity eg. youth. Supports gender based predictions of gender selection since historically women have limited resources so evolved to select mates who can provide for their offspring
Evaluate Buss 1989
Supports evolutionary explanations of gender differences in mate selection as similar findings were found across cultures but it is not truly representative as it was hard to include rural and less populated areas. Doesn't take into account social influences. Does not explain homosexual relationships
Singh 1993
Used data from 50 years of beauty contest winners and Playboy centre folds to assess waist to hip ratios. Found small waist and full hips were a consistent feature of female attractiveness while breast size, weight and physique varied overtime - small waist:hip is an indicator of fertility
Davis 1990
Performed a content analysis of personal ads and found men look for health and attractiveness whilst offering wealth whilst women looked for resources and status while offering beauty and youth
Parental Investment
Any time or effort a parent puts towards conception and rearing of a child that reduces their ability to invest in other offspring
Sex differences in parental investment
Men only need to be involved at contraception whilst women also have to invest during pregnancy Historically women invest more time and energy in care but men provide protection, shelter and resources. The number of kids women have is limited so they're likely to invest more heavily than men
Sets found in the same folder