Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Psychology Relationships

AQA A2 2012 RELATIONSHIPS SPECIFICATION (B)
by

Zoe B

on 3 January 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Psychology Relationships

Theories of the formation and maitence of romantic relationships Reward theory can be used to explain -People enter relationships with biological and social needs i.e sex and emotional value
-The more rewards=the more attracted we are
-Rusbult " more rewards+ personal info+intacmy= develop relationship"
- F amiliraity
- E xposure
- A ttractivness
- S imilarity Saegert for RT

Aim: more exposure = more attractive?

Method: Female taste liquids in cubicle with student 1x 5x 10xComplete Questionaire one question rate attractiveness

Results: amount of exposure directly linked with attractiveness

Supports RT: More exposure = more attractedCreates polarised effect Backs up similarity and familiarity theory HAYS against RT Looked at student relationships on rewards
They liked fairness and priority to reward partner

Contradicts RT:Not all needs met and yet are still together contradicting


RT Cultural biased?Reliability? Social exchange theory (S.E.T)

-View feelings as profits- minimise cost + maximise profits
-Compare previous relationships
-Gain more profits =stay in relationship
-Expenses outweigh profits= end relationship

-Rusbult investments are highe) alternatives are low (no money, custody battl (eg children, mortgages) could be a profit situation


FOR: Hatfield for SET Method: newlyweds asked if they were recieving more or less?
Rate Happines,Anger,Guilt. H.A.G

Results:
Over benefited =guilty
Equal marriage= high satisfaction
Under benefited = low satisfaction and high anger
Men as satisfied = over benefited marriages/ Women were not!!!

Supports: Results showed that couples viewed relationships in term of benefits i.e rewards AO2 AO1 A03 Cultral bias
Social desriability
I.D.A Limited theories AO3 Breakdown of romantic relationships AO1 AGAINST : Sedikides againt S.E.T close relationship= good self stee, We gain self esteem when we boost our partners emotions > done good z! Conclusion S.E.T
Coherent – is useful as a bridge between explanations of initial attraction/relationship formation & maintenance of relationships.
Over-simple – underlying principle that people are just out for what they can get is simplistic and inaccurate.
Matching Hypothesis: Likley to start relationship with someone who rewards similarly to us, like one not to rject but desire us AGAINST :Walster against MH

Aim: To test the

Method: 752 M and F students tickets for a dance
questionnaire matched with their ideal date
( randomly allocated)
rated by observer attractivness
2.5 hours students were asked to rate THIER partner on attractiveness.

Results: Attractivness most important thing
M asked F out regardless of thier own attractivness

Contradicts: MH as the rewards didnt matter
ONLY the apperance of thier partner FOR MH

-Walster study bad as the male thought the partner was perfect for them

- Atractivness rating personal opinion?

Murstien: showed pics of fake and real engaged couples to people

Supports: as the real couples were seen as more similar AO2 AO1 Relationships breakdown due to cheating,jealously, less fufillment, no sex, travelling, loss of intrest, drifting apart, no rewards DUCKS PHASE MODEL After breakup both partners "avalible"
Each create a break up story to put them in postive light for next partner AO2
Relationships= highly complex
Create a break up story to make them appear atrtactive to other partners
Relationships ended pubically= freedom and avalibilty for new partner AO1 AO2 FOR Duck phase model
Gray and Silver
45 couples married 10 years filed divorce
Men and women both equally like to protect self esteem by creating stories
Supports especially GRAVE DRESSING PHASE -Ducks model can explain doubts in relationship good for marriage guidance theraphy

-Address peoples feeling and behaviiour

-Takes in to some account the complexity Supports because... AO2 Lee used 112 non married break ups
Negotiation and exposure stages most distressing
Missed out stages= less intimates
Long time on stages= lonilness DUCKS PHASE MODEL LEE STAGE PHASE MODEL Good because...
- Real breakups = high validity
Bad because
-Demand characteristics
- Cultural bias Extra
Ducks model= Still hope model
Lees model= end of relationship
Neither explain why they relationships end
Combination of both models would be more accurate I.D.A
Both limited theories
As relationships are extremley complex and personal case studies AO3 Evoultionary explanatino of
human reproductive behaviour Ao1 Langlois et al
12 month babies shown faces the adults rated as "attractive"
Supports because...
We are attracted to those who look good= better genes Waist-to-hip ratio

Singh
Analysed W.H..R from 50 years of pagent winners and playboys.
0.7 ideal as it shows feritlity

Look for >> Physical Attractivness = Good genes AO2 STUDIES FOR EVOLOUTION
BUSS

10,000 sample from 6 continents- average age 23
Partipcants asked general info about themselves
Asked to rate charectertistics

Findings:
All sample MALES rated good looks more than women
All samples wanted MALE to be older
Women rated money higher

Supports because

Men want women to be youthful= fertile
Women want money stability Wayfor and Dunbar

-Content analysis of personal ads
479 male 402 female ads

Men mentioned matieral wealth 1.7x more than females

Men aged 40-49 most likely to mention caring nature i.e ability to raise children

Women 2x more to mentino attractivness

Women 4.5 x wanted wealth in partner

SIGN - WASIT TO HIP Evidence AGAINST sexual selection AO2 Research shows that >> Females in western cultures greater finacical secruity
82,000 single women has babies Britan 2006
25% single parent families Strassber and Holty
Made 4 "female seeking male" ads on internet
500 email responses
Most popular ad was "finacially independent"
compared to "attractive and slim" Sex diffrences in Parental investment Ao1 Sex diffrences down to reproductive rate
Women invest more in offspring as they can have less
Males approach is "quantity not quality"
Offspring maxium Women: 69 Male :888

Example of parent investment

Egg vs sperm - Only 1 egg a month
Pregnancy= long+ painful+ breast feeding hurts!!!

Trivers
The parent who invest= more selective
The other parent is more about oppitunity Ao2 Clark and Hatfield

96 American univesity
approached by stranger asked:
- date?
- go to apparment?
- sex?

Both sexes agreed to date
11x more men went to appartment
75% men chose sex no females did Buss cross cultured study Geher

91 NY graduates
Perception scale - future parent outlook
No diffrence between male and feamle investment
Male showed high levels of ANS when asked "take time off work for child?" compared to women AO2 Evidence AGAINST diffrences in parental investment Biggest critism= outdated Andersson et al Fathers invest equally in step children and own children for college Bell
Hard to explain sex diffrencves based on sucess of reproduction. Better to explain by moralistic and emotions. I.e men are studs for sleeping with lots
while girls are sluts? Evidence of early expeince on adult relationships FOR Ao1 Bowlbys evoloutionary theory
Key words : adaptive,monotropy, internal working model Continuity hypothesis: infant attachment types carry on into adult relationshipd Quick mention about Ainsworth Strange situation Hazer and Shaver

- Attachment behaviour chracterizes behaviour in later life
- Patterns in chilhood establish quality of future relationship bonds AO2 Hazan and Shaver love quiz

630 adults 14-82
108 studentys
Asked to choose adjecives to :
-decribe parent child relationship
-personal opinion of themselves
-views on relationships

Correlation between adult attacment style and parenting recived when younger

Secure - lasting love, trustworthy, likeable

Insecure avoidant - doubtful on true love, independance key

Insecure ressitant - self doubt, dont hide insecurity Critisim of Ainsworth and Hazer and Shaver
Parkes: weakness of strange situation not clear cut or measured on strengh of attachment

Feeney - Love quiz participants may of described current relationship not overall opinion AO2 FOR Continuity Hypothesis

Correlation between attachmnent style and future relationships]

SECURE ATTACHMENT
Collins and Reed - found that secure couples tend to seek secure attached people too

Simpon- found that secure attached seeked emotional and pshyical contact when faced with stressful situation compared to insecure attached.

INSECURE ATTACHMENT

Feeney and Noller - found that those who are avoidant attachment broke up more

Belksy- Insecure acoidant relatiosnhips were selfish and own rewarding = short lived Evidence AGAINST continiutty hypothesis LIfe evnts bigger influence on relationships?

Zimmerman-

Rutter et al-
Full transcript