Topic Assumptions Methodology Nature vs. Nurture Free will vs. Determinism Hollism vs. Reductionism Gender Bias Culture Bias Ethics Psychology as a Science Real-world Application
Reductionist - Sexual
strategies theory (Buss and Overlooks cultural influences - Homosexuality - Partners in
Nomothetic approach - This Biologically determinist - This Nomothetic approach - This
Sexual selection - attributes or Schmitt, 2016) acknowledges Social change has homosexual relationships are
explanation puts forward a explanation asserts that explanation puts forward a
behaviours that increase evolutionary pressures consequences on partner not assessing for genetic
Evolutionary general law of human partner-choosing behaviour is general law of human
reproductive success are influence partner preference, preference (eg. women's fitness, so sexual selection may
explanations for partner behaviour, which can only be Nature - caused by biological N/A behaviour, which can only be N/A
passed on and may become but also accounts for the lessened dependence on men not explain partner preference
preference established if methods of (evolutionary) influences that established if methods of
exaggerated by succeeding context of reproductive to provide for them means their in these relationships. This may
assessment are standardised we can't control, disregarding assessment are standardised
generations of offspring. behaviour (eg. long-term choice of mate may no longer be used to suggest they are
and objective. the potential role of free will. and objective.
relationship?), so it's less be resource-oriented). 'abnormal' or 'unnatural'.
simplistic.
Self-disclosure - Romantic Cultural differences - Tang et Improving communication -
Supporting research is often Reductionist - Altman and Correlational research - It is
partners reveal more about al. (2013) concluded that men Haas and Stafford (1998) found
correlational - Sprecher and Taylor's (1973) social assumed that greater self-
their true selves as their and women in the US self- 57% of homosexual men +
Factors affecting Hendrick (2004) found strong penetration theory disclosure creates more
relationship develops. Self- disclose sig. more sexual women said that self-
attraction: Self- correlations between several N/A N/A distinguishes between the N/A N/A satisfaction (a causal link) but
disclosures about one's thoughts/feelings than those in disclosure maintained +
disclosure measures of satisfaction and breadth and depth of self- this isn't a valid conclution to
deepest thoughts and feelings China, but levels of satisfaction deepened their relationships.
self-diclosure for both partners disclosures, rather than viewing draw from correlational
can strengthen a rmantic bond were no different from in the Focus on self-disclosure could
in heterosexual relationships. self-disclosure as a whole. research.
when used appropriately. US. improve relationships.
Research on the matching Nature - This explanation Biologically determinist - This Universal signs of genetic
P.A. and the matching Reductionism - This Political implications - Palmer
hypothesis - Walster and highlights the importance of is an evolutionary explanation, fitness - Cunningham et al. Socially sensitive - Someone
hypothesis - We seek to form explanation ignores the and Peterson (2012) found
Walster (1969) had objective physical attractiveness on an highlighting the importance of (1995) found that women with with poor self-esteem could be
Factors affecting relationships with the most importance of factors like physcially attractive people
observers rate the P.A. of male evolutionary level because physical attractiveness on an large eyes, prominent led to believe they will never
attraction: Physical attractive person available, or personality, reducing partner N/A N/A were rated as more politcally
+ female students invited to a attractive features (eg. evolutionary level because cheekbones, small nose, and find a partner because they
attractiveness with someone who preference down to physcial knowledgeable + competent
dance, and the students did a symmetry) are a sign of genetic attractive features (eg. high eyebrows were rated as perceive themselves to be
approximately 'matches' us in appearance and the genetic than unattractive people (halo
questionnaire about fitness, which we are innately symmetry) are a sign of genetic highly attractive by white, unattractive.
physical attractiveness. fitness this suggests. effect).
themselves. driven to seek in a partner. fitness. Hispanic, and Asian men.
Longitudinal study - Kerckhoff Complimentarity - Filter theory Low validity + replicability -
Both - The social demography
Filter theory - States that a and Davis asked both partners Reductionist - Reduces predicts that in the most Levinger (1974) pointed out
filter is defined by a range of
series of different factors in couples completed behaviour in relationship satisfying relationships many studies have failed to
features, some of which are
Factors affecting progressively reduce the range questionnaires to assess formation to levels which partners are complimentary. replicate the og findings from
more clossely associated with N/A N/A N/A N/A
attraction: Filter Theory of available romantic partners similarity and complimentarity, reduce the range of available This may make people (women) Kerckhoff and Davis, so filter
nature (eg. ethnic group), or
to a much smaller pool of and then completed another romantic partners to a smaller feel like they should be satisfied theory is undermined by the
with nurture (eg. religion, level
possibilities. one to assess 'closeness' 7 pool. with being submissive to a lack of validity of its evidence
of education).
months later. dominant partner. base.
SET - Assumes that romantic Economical? - SET assumes
Exchange-based - This Vague concepts that are hard
partners act out of self-interest that are economic and exchage-
explanation reduces close to quantify - Real-world
in exchanging rewards and based in nature. However, this
Theories of romantic emotional bonds to simple psychological rewards and
costs. A satisfying and explanation may be seen as a
relationships: Social N/A N/A N/A exchange-based relationships, N/A N/A costs are subjective and hard to N/A
committed relationship is pessemistic way to view to
exchange theory a pessemistic way to view the define (may vary from person to
maintained when rewards close emotional bond, even
significance of that person). The theory is difficult
exceed costs and potential undermining the significance of
relationship. to test in a valid way.
alternatives are less attractive. that relationship.
Cultural differences in equity Direction of causation - Equity
Equity - An economic theory Real-world - Studies from real-
and satisfaction link - Aumer- theory assumes that inequity
that acknowledges the impact world relationships that
Economic - This explanations Ryan et al. (2007) found that leads to dissatisfaction, but
Theories of romantic of rewards and costs, but says confirm equity theory as a more
reducs the complexities of couples from an I.C. were Grote and Clark (2001) argue
relationships: Equity the most important factor is the valid explanation than SET. For N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
relationships down to simple satisfied when their that, once dissatisfaction sets
Theory partners' perception of how fair example, Utne et al. (1984)
values. relationship was equitable, but in, partners notice inequities
the distribution of rewards and carried out a survey of 118
in a C.C. they were most and become even more
costs is. recently-married couples.
satisfied overbenefitting. dissatisfied.
Reductionist - Sexual
strategies theory (Buss and Overlooks cultural influences - Homosexuality - Partners in
Nomothetic approach - This Biologically determinist - This Nomothetic approach - This
Sexual selection - attributes or Schmitt, 2016) acknowledges Social change has homosexual relationships are
explanation puts forward a explanation asserts that explanation puts forward a
behaviours that increase evolutionary pressures consequences on partner not assessing for genetic
Evolutionary general law of human partner-choosing behaviour is general law of human
reproductive success are influence partner preference, preference (eg. women's fitness, so sexual selection may
explanations for partner behaviour, which can only be Nature - caused by biological N/A behaviour, which can only be N/A
passed on and may become but also accounts for the lessened dependence on men not explain partner preference
preference established if methods of (evolutionary) influences that established if methods of
exaggerated by succeeding context of reproductive to provide for them means their in these relationships. This may
assessment are standardised we can't control, disregarding assessment are standardised
generations of offspring. behaviour (eg. long-term choice of mate may no longer be used to suggest they are
and objective. the potential role of free will. and objective.
relationship?), so it's less be resource-oriented). 'abnormal' or 'unnatural'.
simplistic.
Self-disclosure - Romantic Cultural differences - Tang et Improving communication -
Supporting research is often Reductionist - Altman and Correlational research - It is
partners reveal more about al. (2013) concluded that men Haas and Stafford (1998) found
correlational - Sprecher and Taylor's (1973) social assumed that greater self-
their true selves as their and women in the US self- 57% of homosexual men +
Factors affecting Hendrick (2004) found strong penetration theory disclosure creates more
relationship develops. Self- disclose sig. more sexual women said that self-
attraction: Self- correlations between several N/A N/A distinguishes between the N/A N/A satisfaction (a causal link) but
disclosures about one's thoughts/feelings than those in disclosure maintained +
disclosure measures of satisfaction and breadth and depth of self- this isn't a valid conclution to
deepest thoughts and feelings China, but levels of satisfaction deepened their relationships.
self-diclosure for both partners disclosures, rather than viewing draw from correlational
can strengthen a rmantic bond were no different from in the Focus on self-disclosure could
in heterosexual relationships. self-disclosure as a whole. research.
when used appropriately. US. improve relationships.
Research on the matching Nature - This explanation Biologically determinist - This Universal signs of genetic
P.A. and the matching Reductionism - This Political implications - Palmer
hypothesis - Walster and highlights the importance of is an evolutionary explanation, fitness - Cunningham et al. Socially sensitive - Someone
hypothesis - We seek to form explanation ignores the and Peterson (2012) found
Walster (1969) had objective physical attractiveness on an highlighting the importance of (1995) found that women with with poor self-esteem could be
Factors affecting relationships with the most importance of factors like physcially attractive people
observers rate the P.A. of male evolutionary level because physical attractiveness on an large eyes, prominent led to believe they will never
attraction: Physical attractive person available, or personality, reducing partner N/A N/A were rated as more politcally
+ female students invited to a attractive features (eg. evolutionary level because cheekbones, small nose, and find a partner because they
attractiveness with someone who preference down to physcial knowledgeable + competent
dance, and the students did a symmetry) are a sign of genetic attractive features (eg. high eyebrows were rated as perceive themselves to be
approximately 'matches' us in appearance and the genetic than unattractive people (halo
questionnaire about fitness, which we are innately symmetry) are a sign of genetic highly attractive by white, unattractive.
physical attractiveness. fitness this suggests. effect).
themselves. driven to seek in a partner. fitness. Hispanic, and Asian men.
Longitudinal study - Kerckhoff Complimentarity - Filter theory Low validity + replicability -
Both - The social demography
Filter theory - States that a and Davis asked both partners Reductionist - Reduces predicts that in the most Levinger (1974) pointed out
filter is defined by a range of
series of different factors in couples completed behaviour in relationship satisfying relationships many studies have failed to
features, some of which are
Factors affecting progressively reduce the range questionnaires to assess formation to levels which partners are complimentary. replicate the og findings from
more clossely associated with N/A N/A N/A N/A
attraction: Filter Theory of available romantic partners similarity and complimentarity, reduce the range of available This may make people (women) Kerckhoff and Davis, so filter
nature (eg. ethnic group), or
to a much smaller pool of and then completed another romantic partners to a smaller feel like they should be satisfied theory is undermined by the
with nurture (eg. religion, level
possibilities. one to assess 'closeness' 7 pool. with being submissive to a lack of validity of its evidence
of education).
months later. dominant partner. base.
SET - Assumes that romantic Economical? - SET assumes
Exchange-based - This Vague concepts that are hard
partners act out of self-interest that are economic and exchage-
explanation reduces close to quantify - Real-world
in exchanging rewards and based in nature. However, this
Theories of romantic emotional bonds to simple psychological rewards and
costs. A satisfying and explanation may be seen as a
relationships: Social N/A N/A N/A exchange-based relationships, N/A N/A costs are subjective and hard to N/A
committed relationship is pessemistic way to view to
exchange theory a pessemistic way to view the define (may vary from person to
maintained when rewards close emotional bond, even
significance of that person). The theory is difficult
exceed costs and potential undermining the significance of
relationship. to test in a valid way.
alternatives are less attractive. that relationship.
Cultural differences in equity Direction of causation - Equity
Equity - An economic theory Real-world - Studies from real-
and satisfaction link - Aumer- theory assumes that inequity
that acknowledges the impact world relationships that
Economic - This explanations Ryan et al. (2007) found that leads to dissatisfaction, but
Theories of romantic of rewards and costs, but says confirm equity theory as a more
reducs the complexities of couples from an I.C. were Grote and Clark (2001) argue
relationships: Equity the most important factor is the valid explanation than SET. For N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
relationships down to simple satisfied when their that, once dissatisfaction sets
Theory partners' perception of how fair example, Utne et al. (1984)
values. relationship was equitable, but in, partners notice inequities
the distribution of rewards and carried out a survey of 118
in a C.C. they were most and become even more
costs is. recently-married couples.
satisfied overbenefitting. dissatisfied.
