Theories of the Formation of Romantic Relationships Essay Example for Free

Theories of the Formation of Romantic Relationships Essay Describe and evaluate two or more theories of the formation of romantic relationships (8+16) One theory put forward for the formation of romantic relationships was by Murstein – called the Matching Hypothesis. Murstein argued that we all desire the best looking person; however we accept that this may not happen, so we go for people with a similar attractiveness to ourselves. It makes us far less likely to suffer rejection. So, in theory, Murstein’s argument is fundamentally based on physical attractiveness and does not take into account personality. Murstein says that self esteem can also affect this process. If someone suffers from a low self esteem, they are more likely to go for someone who is not as good looking as them to try and boost their esteem. This also works in reverse, if someone has a high self esteem they will go for someone who they believe is ‘out of their league’ as they feel they have the confidence to make them their partner. Murstein also carried out research to support his theory. He studied 99 couples who were dating and compared them with randomly paired couples. He found that the real couples were consistently rated as more alike in levels of attractiveness. Murstein’s theory can be credited as it offers an explanation of how people with low self esteem find relationships – something that hasn’t been account for in many other theories of the formation of romantic relationships. Murstein also has further research that supported his findings which was carried out by Silverman. He rated dating couples in a bar in similar levels of attractiveness. However we have to account for Silverman’s study that the two people in the bar may have just been friends, just because there was a girl and a boy doesn’t automatically mean that they are in a relationship. Also, Silverman’s study is culturally bias – dates in bars may not happen in all countries and therefore it would be difficult to generalise the findings. Also, both Murstein’s and Silverman’s study’s have researcher bias – the level of someone’s attractiveness is a matter of opinion; what someone could find very attractive may not be attractive for another person at all. It is a subjective measure. Individual differences are also not accounted for e.g. someone may have a fetish. Furthermore, in Murstein’s theory he talks about self esteem, and although it is a valid point he has raised, the term self esteem is very rigid. It doesn’t account for people’s choices and decisions. Finally, in the studies, short and long term relationships have not been established – is it fair for Murstein to categorise people who have been together for a week and people who have been together for a year? The second theory of the formation of romantic relationships is the Filter Model of Attraction. This was devised by Kerchoff and Davis. They stated that people rely on a number of social and personal factors to filter potential relationships. We use three filters to help us narrow down potential partners. The first of the three filters is social/demographic variables e.g. ethnicity, race, religion and social class. The second is similar attitudes or internal values and finally, the last is complementary of needs – will they fulfil each others needs. They argued if a potential partner ticks all three boxes then we are more likely to enter a relationship with them. Research from Bossard supports the theory; he found that half of the couples who applied to get married in Philadelphia lived within a few minutes walk of each other. However, his findings aren’t very strong, it wasn’t the majority of people who he surveyed, it was half. The Filter Model of Attraction is too deterministic, it doesn’t account for the natural free will that everybody possess. Another major weakness is that it fails to account for inter-racial relationships – the first filter is that we are more likely to go into a relationship with someone if they are the same race as us – however it is not uncommon at all in today’s society for people of different races to enter a relationship. In addition, arranged marriages are not accounted for in this theory, as that is down to the parents and the children have no choice in who they spend their lives with, so they do not apply this filter at all. Finally, the filter model of attraction lack empirical evidence – there is no research to support it. On the other hand, we can find some support in the matching hypothesis which also states that people of the same race are more likely to treat them as a potential partner.

The Earth Centered Theme of Shakespeares King Lear Essay -- King Lear

The Earth Centered Theme of Shakespeare's King Lear King Lear is a complicated, apocalyptic play with parallel plots, moral ambiguity, and a messy ending. The play's events were politically charged and historically informed when they were performed in seventeenth century England, as they continue to be to today. Whatever his intentions, Shakespeare has given us several universal truths to consider. One I like to consider is how beneath all the sinister and bold machinations of man lies the gentle earth, from which we, and all life, spring. Some critics note that Shakespeare was skeptical about God and the role of religion in one's life. I believe King Lear is the product of a writer with a solid cosmology, but one centered in earth and humanity. I hesitate to label Shakespeare a pagan, or anything other than brilliant. Yet there is evidence enough in the text for me to argue an earth-centric thesis. A close reading reveals those who employ common wording or down-to-earth speech as embodiments of goodness, whereas characters that insis t on the perfectly controlled, artificial utterances of the feudal court are corrupt at best, if not evil. The gods above are shown to be fickle and uncaring, if not bloodthirsty. Shakespeare also weaves in certain utopian visions into the fabric of King Lear, earth-based ideals, not only pre-Christian like the play's setting, but pre-historic; thus supporting the argument for an earthen cosmology and humanistic political consciousness, freely exhibited and often applied in the work. Unnatural Edmund Edmund rejects the very idea of baseness, or what we might think of as earthiness. He is skillfully used in the play to oppose to all that is common and good. His famous soliloquy in Act 1, Sc... ... manifest values of personal humility, caring, and wise stewardship of the land. Works Cited Elliot, Michael. King Lear by William Shakespeare. Princeton: Films for the Humanities. 1988. Starring: Laurence Olivier and John Hurt. Oates, Joyce Carol. " 'Is This the Promised End?': The Tragedy of King Lear." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. (Fall 1974) URL: http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/southerr/lear.html. Schneider, Ben Ross, Jr. "King Lear in Its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes." Early Modern Literary Studies 1.1 (1995): 3.1-49 URL: http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/emls/01-1/schnlear.html. Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Edited by David Bevington. New York: Bantam. 1980. Smiley, Jane. A Thousand Acres. New York: Fawcett Columbine. 1991. Toole, John Kennedy. A Confederacy of Dunces. New York: Grove Weidenfeld. 1980.

Lincoln Douglas Outline Essay

Before you begin your speech briefly thank the judge and your opponent for providing the opportunity for this important debate. I. Engage With an Attention-Getter. The attention-getter is designed to intrigue the audience members and to motivate them to listen attentively for the next several minutes. There are infinite possibilities for attention-getting devices. Some of the more common devices include using a story, a surprising statistic, or a quotation. Whichever you choose, be sure that your attention-getter makes sense to the case and that it is explained. See more: argument essay format II. Provide a Resolutional Analysis. Say the precise wording of the topic so your judge knows exactly what is being debated. Explain what the resolution is asking – most require that you choose between two values (ex. â€Å"Resolved: Individuality should be valued above community†), other topics have implied values which require a little more explanation. III. Offer Definitions. Clearly define the vital words/phrases in the resolution and cite the dictionary or encyclopedia you used. Make sure the definitions you choose support what you are arguing – definitions matter – sometimes they decide who wins and loses the debate! IV. Propose a Value. A value is an ideal held by individuals, societies, or governments that serves as the highest goal to be protected/achieved. In general, the debater will establish a value which focuses the central questions of the resolution and will serve as a foundation for argumentation. Explain how the value relates to the topic. V. Offer a Criterion. You should present a criterion (a standard) which should be used to: ââ€" ªExplain how the value should be protected, respected, maximized, or achieved. ââ€" ªMeasure whether a given side or argument protects, respects, maximizes, or achieves the value. The relationship between the value and the criterion should be clearly stated. VI. Present Contention 1. Provide a â€Å"tagline† or brief title to the argument. Introduce the claim or argument you are making (ex. â€Å"Capital punishment deters crime†). Introduce your warrant – the reason your claim is true. Offer valid evidence that supports your claim (ex. â€Å"According to the Attorney General, states that have the death penalty have less violent crime†). Explain the impact of your argument on the debate. Be sure to relate your argument back to the resolution and explain how this argument helps to uphold the value (ex. â€Å"Because capital punishment decreases crime it upholds Justice, which is the most important value in today’s round†). VII. Present Contention 2. Is the claim clear? Is valid evidence offered? Is the warrant clear? (Is the piece of evidence explained, how does it apply to the resolution?) Is enough evidence offered to prove the claim? Does the case explain how this piece of evidence helps to uphold the value? VIII. Present Contention 3. Same as Contention 1 and 2 above! IX. End the Speech with a Solid Conclusion. Review the main points of the case, especially the value. Use the criterion to â€Å"weigh the case† (or prove how your arguments best support the value). Provide a final thought that refers back to the attention-getter. Ask for the win (ex. â€Å"For all these reasons I can see nothing but an affirmative ballot†).

Professions in Mandarin Chinese Vocabulary