3.2 relationships Flashcards
sexual selection
according to evolutionary psychology, partner preferences are driven by sexual selection. this means that both males and females choose partners in order to maximise their chances of reproductive success.
individuals with traits that maximise reproductive success (e.g. strength, height, aggression, wide hips etc.) are more likely to survive and pass on the genes responsible for their success.
difference in male and female selection
males have gametes (sperm cells), which are able to reproduce quickly with little energy expenditure. female gametes (eggs or ova) are much less plentiful and require far more energy to produce.
this difference (anisogamy) means that males and females use distinct strategies to choose a partner. generally males use intra-sexual selection and females use inter-sexual selection.
males: intra-sexual selection
intra-sexual selection is where members of one sex (usually male) compete with one another for access to the other sex.
this leads to male-female dimorphism, which is the accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics in those with greater reproductive fitness.
males: anisogamy
anisogamy suggests that a male’s best evolutionary strategy is to have as many partners as possible.
males must compete with other males to present themselves as the most attractive mate to fertile female partners.
males: mate-guarding
males might engage in mate guarding where they guard their female partner to prevent them mating with anyone else.
males are very fearful of having to raise another man’s child, this is called cuckoldry.
females: inter-sexual selection
inter-sexual selection is where members of one sex (usually female) choose from available prospective mates (usually males) according to attractiveness.
females: anisogamy
anisogamy suggests that a woman’s best evolutionary strategy is to be selective when choosing a partner.
females will tend to seek a male who displays characteristics of physical health, high status, and resources. thus the male partner is able to protect them and provide for their children.
although this ability may have equated to muscular strength in our evolutionary past, in modern society it is more likely to relate to occupation, social class and wealth.
two strengths of evolutionary explanations
+ buss (1989) conducted a survey of over 10K adults in 33 countries and found that females reported valuing resource-based characteristics (such as occupation) whilst men valued good looks and preferred younger partners.
+ clark and hatfield (1989) conducted a now infamous study where male and female psychology students were asked to approach opposite-sex students of florida state university. they asked them for one of three things: to go on a date, back to their apartment, or bed with them.
about 50% of both men and women agreed to the date.
69% of men agreed to visit the apartment and 75% agreed to go to bed with them.
only 6% of women agreed to go to the apartment and 0% accepted the more intimate offer.
three weaknesses of evolutionary explanations
- the evolutionary approach is deterministic suggesting that we have little free-will in partner choice. however, everyday experience tells us we do have some control over our partner preferences.
- evolutionary approaches to mate preferences are socially sensitive in that they promote traditional (sexist) views regarding what are ‘natural’ male and female behaviours which do not apply to modern society. women are now more career orientated and independent therefore will not look for resourceful partners as much as they may have had to in decades past. the availability of contraception means that evolutionary pressures are less relevant.
- evolutionary theory makes little attempt to explain other types of relationships, e.g. non-heterosexual relationships, and cultural variations in relationships which exist across the world, like arranged marriages
self-disclosure
several factors affect attraction in romantic relationships, one of these factors is self-disclosure.
this is the revealing of personal information, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences to another person.
altman and taylor (1973)
self-disclosure is a central concept in social penetration theory proposed by altman and taylor (1973).
this theory claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences to their partner, couples gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust. therefore, self-disclosure will increase attraction.
self disclosure levels
as people build trust in their partner, the breadth and depth of self-disclosure will increase.
at first, people only disclose superficial details about themselves, such as hobbies and interests, and gradually reveal more intimate details, such as family values and difficult experiences.
however, self-disclosing too quickly (e.g. on a first date) can reduce attraction.
people expect the same level of self-disclosure from others as they actually give. this is known as reciprocal self-disclosure.
three strengths of self-disclosure
+ tal-or (2015) conducted research that agrees that self-disclosure is a gradual process that can affect attraction in romantic relationships. analysis of reality TV shows like big brother revealed that viewers did not like contestants who self-disclosed early on, and preferred those who self-disclosed gradually. this evidence is also extremely recent, which makes it more relevant in todays changing world.
+ altman and taylor (1973) found that self-disclosure on the first date is inappropriate and did not increase attraction levels. the person who was self-disclosing was seen as maladjusted and not very likeable.
+ kito (2010) found research evidence to support the idea of self-disclosure across different cultures. they investigated japanese and american students in different types of relationships, and found that self-disclosure was high for students in romantic relationships that were heterosexual.
two weaknesses of self-disclosure
- sprecher (2013) found research evidence that the level (or quality) of self-disclosure received is the best predictor of liking and loving. this goes against the idea of reciprocal self-disclosure, which states that the amount of self disclosure given should be the amount that is received in order to be considered an attractive partner.
- it seems unlikely that attraction to a potential partner is based on self-disclosure alone. self-disclosure might be an important element, but other factors are also needed in order to increase attraction, such as physical attraction, similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs.
physical attractiveness
physical attractiveness affects attraction in romantic relationships.
men place a great deal of importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a female partner in both the short-term and the long-term.
research shows that women, however, value physical attractiveness when choosing a male partner in the short-term rather than the long-term.
what is considered to be physically attractive varies across culture and time.
halo effect
the halo effect is when the general impression of a person is incorrectly formed from one characteristic alone.
physically attractive people are often seen as more sociable, optimistic, successful and trustworthy.
people tend to behave positively towards people who are physically attractive and this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the physically attractive person behaves even more positively because of the positive attention they receive.
evaluate the halo effect
+ palmer and peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable than unattractive people. the halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants found out that the physically attractive person had no expertise in politics.
- towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph. participants also completed a MACHO scale which measured sexist attitudes and behaviour.
it was found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness. those who scored low on the questionnaire did not value physical attractiveness.
therefore, the influence of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors (e.g. personality).
the matching hypothesis
when initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek partners who have the same social desirability as themselves.
physical attractiveness becomes the major determining factor as it is an accessible way for each person to rate the other person as a potential partner before forming a relationship.
most people would prefer to form a relationship with someone who is physically attractive, but in order to not be rejected, many people will approach others who are of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
evaluate the matching hypothesis
+ fangold (1988) found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples. he established a strong positive correlation between the partners’ ratings of physical attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis.
- walster (1966) invited 752 first-year students at the university of minnesota to attend a dance party. they were randomly matched to a partner. however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of physical attractiveness. at the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them.
contrary to the matching hypothesis, students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.
- sometimes a very physically attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person. often a rebalance of traits will occur, whereby the less physically attractive person has some other traits to make up for their lack of physical attractiveness (e.g. being rich, having a high status or great personality). this is called complex matching.
filter theory
kerchoff and david (1962) proposed we use filtering to reduce the field of available partners down to a field of desirable partners.
when we meet a potential partner we engage in three levels of filtering: social demography, similarity in attitude, and complementarity of needs. we tend to be attracted to those who pass through a series of filters.
examples of each filter
social demography suggests that from the outset, we screen out people based on age, sex, education, social background etc. we are more attracted to people from similar backgrounds to our own.
we choose people who have similar attitudes to our own, because this allows for better cohesion within the relationship (eg. aligned political views, interests etc.)
in the longer term, we choose people who complement our needs and own traits.
two strengths of filter theory
+ taylor (2010) found 85% of americans who got married in 2008 had married someone from their own ethnic group, supporting the social demography part of filter theory. individuals seem to choose partners that are similar to them and have a similar background to them.
+ hoyle (1993) found that perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction and liking more strongly than actual attitude similarity. tidwell proved this hypothesis by measuring these two factors in a questionnaire at a speed dating event, whereby participants had to make quick decisions about attraction. results showed that perceived attitude similarity preducted attraction better than actual.
three weaknesses of filter theory
- levinger (1970) conducted research using 330 couples and found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship was.
- anderson (2003) found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction. at the start of the relationship, their attitudes were not so similar - this is called emotional convergence. filter theory is therefore not accurate in saying that attraction is purely based on similar attitudes or similar social demography.
- research using online dating has shown a lack of support for filter theory in that it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form. the internet has meant that there is a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone, and it is now easier to meet people who live far away, or who have a different ethnicity, social class and background. we might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits, and this is very apparent now, compared to the past (30 years ago).
social exchange theory
this is an economic theory of romantic relationships and is based on the idea that relationships are ‘like a business’.
rewards and costs
we monitor the rewards (fun, attention, esteem etc.) and the costs (time, emotional strain, etc)
we all want the maximum rewards from a relationship (considered the most attractive) and the minimum costs (the least attractive). individuals focus on getting out more than they put in.
mutually beneficial relationships will succeed whereas imbalanced relationships will fail.
comparison level/for alternatives
(comparison levels) we compare our present relationship to previous relationships we have had.
we also compare our present partner with people around us who we could potentially have a relationship with (comparison level for alternatives) we look around for a “better deal” if our current relationship is not satisfactory.
three strengths of social exchange theory
+ (jacobson, 2000) found that SET has practical applications. integrated couples therapy helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours, and to decrease negative exchanges, whilst increasing positive exchanges. 66% of couples reported significant improvements in their relationship after receiving this form of therapy.
+ gottman (1992) found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative exchanges. in successful marriages where the relationship is happy, the ratio or positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1.
+ different people perceive rewards and costs differently so this theory can account for individual differences in attraction. for example, one person may view being rich as an extreme reward, and value this a lot more than another person who may consider loyalty the biggest reward in a relationship.