Chapter 8- Relationships Flashcards
What does Darwin’s theory of sexual selection propose?
- Darwin’s theory of sexual selection is an evolutionary explanation of partner preference
- Attributes/behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to offspring
- These characteristics may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
What is an adaptive behaviour in sexual selection theory?
- A behaviour is said to be adaptive if it leads to increased survival and therefore successful reproduction of an organism.
- e.g. aggressiveness is an adaptive behaviour because it provides an advantage for a male over competitors for reproductive rights
- the aggressive characteristic that allowed organism to reproduce is passed to offspring (only if it is genetically determined) and the gene remains in the descent of that organism.
- The weaker, less aggressive organisms don’t successfully reproduce or survive, so their genes are not passed on + are sexually outcompeted.
Define human reproductive behaviour in terms of evolutionary explanations for partner preference:
Human reproductive behaviour is any behaviour that relates to opportunity to reproduce and thereby increase survival chances of our genes. It includes survival mechanisms, such as mate choice and mate competition.
Define Anisogamy:
Anisogamy is the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes).
Male gametes are produced in millions at a time, are small in size and are energetically cheap to synthesise.
Female gametes are relatively unabundant, larger in size, and are energetically expensive to synthesise.
The female invests more in production of an egg than a male does in sperm, so she is more discriminating in her choice of mate.
Anisogamy gives rise to 2 different types of sexual selection strategies (inter + intra sexual selection)
What is inter-sexual selection?
Intersexual selection is between the sexes. It is the preference of one sex for the member of the opposite sex who has certain qualities.
This is the preferred strategy of FEMALES.
‘quality over quantity’
Females make greater investment of time, commitment, resources before, during and after birth.
Both sexes are choosy, but the consequences of choosing the wrong partner choice is more serious for the female, so she has to be more selective to ensure survival of her genes.
This is the female’s optimum strategy as she needs to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide resources.
This enhances female reproductive success, any child she bears has greater chance of survival.
What is the Sexy Sons Hypothesis?
Part of inter-sexual selection (female’s preferred strategy)
It is the female’s preference of characteristics that determine the features passed onto offspring - these features become exaggerated overtime.
= Sexy Sons Hypothesis , the genes we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success (tall height, muscular, agility etc). Female that mates with male with certain characteristic will have a son with this trait - the sons are then also more likely to be selected by successive generations of females = ‘runaway process’
What is intrasexual selection?
Intrasexual selection is within the sexes.
It is preferred strategies of males, ‘quantity over quality’.
There is competition between males to be selected by a female. The ‘winner’ is able to reproduce and pass on his genes to offspring, and the ‘losers’ don’t pass on their losing traits as they don’t mate.
This strategy has led to dimorphism - males and females look very different due to intrasexual selection.
Larger males have an advantage therefore reproduce succcessfully. Females don’t compete for reproductive rights, therefore no evolutionary drive towards larger females (BUT youthfulness is selected, due to indication of feritility)
Intrasexual selection has behavioural consequences; for males to acquire fertile females and protect them from competing males, they may benefit from being aggresive or being deceptive etc…
What is a behavioural consequence for females of competition between males?
= a distinct preference for youth and sensitivity to indicators of youth and fertility.
Male reproduction is limited by access to fertile mate.
Reproductive value is measured in expected future reproduction (long term)
Fertitility is the current ability to reproduce (short term)
A 10yr old girl would have high reproductive value but low fertility whereas….
a 30yr old woman would have high fertility but low reproductive value.
Youthfulness is an indicator of both reproductive value and fertility.
female fertility is closely related to age, so males show preference for younger, physically attractive women who are youthful.
Men are fertile almost their whole life, so fertility for them is less related to age, so preference for youthfulness is more pronouned in men.
Describe research support for intersexual selection:
One strength is evidence for specific role of female choosiness in heterosexual partner preference.
Clark and Hatfield conducted study on university campus to investigate differences in reproductive behaviour between men and women.
Attractive male and female experimenters approached total strangers on campus and said:
‘Hi ive been noticing you around campus and find you very attractive.’
Then asked them a series of questions:
- ….. Would you go on a date with me?
- ……. Would you go back to my apartment?
- ……..Would you have sex with me?
Males were asked by females, and vice versa.
To question 1, 50% males agreed, and 50% females agreed.
To question 2, 69% males agreed but 0% females agreed.
To question 3, 69% males agreed, but 0% females agreed.
This shows that women are less likely to agree to have casual sex, their gametes require more investment, therefore more risk. Men likely to be more open to casual sex because it is beneficial for them to have more relationships. Less investment required from their side.
Describe research support for intrasexual selection:
Buss ‘89, found research evidence for Anisogamy and intrasexual selection. He explored what males and females looked for in marriage partner using over 10,000 people form 37 different cultures. Sample accounted for wide diversity of ethnic, religious and political and economic groups. (no cultural bias)
He asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference.
He found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics more than males, like good financial prospects and ambition.
He found that males valued physical attractiveness and youth (as signs of fertility) more than females.
These findings refelct consistent sex differences in partner preference and support prediction from sexual selection theory.
What is a limitation of evolutionary theories?
- Influences of social and cultural factors on partner preference are ignored
- Partner preferences have changed culturally.
- This theory doesn’t account for medical intervention, ie contraception
- female selection behaviour has changed due to majority of women being employed and being financially independent.
- Women may no longer be after primarily resources.
- Mate preference are therefore the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. A theory that falls to account for both is a limited explanation.
- Evolutionary theories don’t explain homosexual relationships, which don’t have reproduction as an aim.
- Lawson 2014 found that homosexual men and women described a different criteria in what they look for compared to heterosexual men and women.
- Therefore, this explanation is limited to heterosexual relationships.
What is self disclosure?
Self disclosure in romantic relationships is a reciprocal exchange of information between partners. This leads to a deeper understanding of each other’s lives.
When one person reveals personal info about themselves, it indicates trust towards other person, and to deepen relationship the other person must also reveal sensitive info.
What is social penetration theory?
Social Penetration theory (SPT), developed by Altman and Taylor, focusses on a relationship develops.
It involves self-disclosure between partners.
As each partner increasingly reveals more and mor einfo about one another, romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives, gaining a greater understanding of each other + deeper connection.
Disclosing insinuates trsut and suggests relationship has reached a stage where deeper disclosure is welcomed and reciproacted.
What do Altman and Taylor mean by breadth and depth of self disclosure, in their SPT?
Uses an onion metaphor - ‘peelin the onion’
There are 4 levels: superficial, intimate, personal, core.
Breadth is how much info is disclosed.
Depth is how you progress into the levels of info, from superficial to core.
As both breadth and depth increase, romantic partners become more committed to one another.
Low risk info (interests, hobbies, career, degree) is revealed early on in relationship (superficial) and high risk info (trauma, family, religion, political views) come out as relationship progresses.
At the beginning of a relationship, a lot of superficial info is disclosed (outer later of onion)
It includes low risk info that could be revealed to anyone. Breadth of disclosure at this point is narrow, as many topics are ‘off limits’.
If too much revealed too soon, you get a TMI response, could threaten/off-put relationship.
As relationships develops, seld-disclosure becomes deeper and more layers are explored to reveal true self to partner, eventually leading to discosure of high risk info.
According to Reis and Shaver, what other element other than breadth and depth are important for intimate relationships?
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
Once on partner has disclosed something that reveals true self, the other partner should respond in a way that is rewarding with empathy and also with their own intimate thoughts/feelings.
A balance of self-disclosure between partners leads to successful romantic relationships, increasing intimacy and deepening relationship.
Evaluate the theories on self-disclosure:
Support:
Sprecher + Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples and found positive correlation between several measurs of relationship satisfaction and self disclosure = partners are more satisfied in relationship if disclosure is reciprocated.
These findings increase validity of theory
Issues with this research?
It is correlational = casual link, not establishing cause and effect …. Potentially could be a 3rd variable (e.g. time spent together?)
Self disclosure may not directly cause satisfaction, decreasing validity of SPT.
Also sample is not representative, only heterosexual couples.
Support:
Real-life application: help people improve communication in their relationships. Romantic partners, with this knowledge, will be able to use self-disclosure deliberately from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen the bond. Hass and Stafford found that 57% gay men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships. This shows value of psychological insight.
Problem with this study? Findings are only applicable to homosexual romantic relationships, therefore not generalisable.
Weakness:
Cultural differences- the predication that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosure will lead to more satisfaction in not true for all cultures. Tang et al reveiwed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men/women in USA disclose more than men/women in China (individualist vs collectivist culture).
Despite lower levels of disclosure in China, level of satisfaction were no different from those in USA.
= self disclosure limited explanation of romantic relationship, findings of western culture cannot be generalised to other cultures, = cultural bias.
What is physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Physical attractiveness is an important factor in formation of romantic relationships. The term is used to describe how appealing someone’s face/body is to someone. There is a general agreement within and across cultures about what is physically attractive (neotenous- baby-like- features, facial symmetry)
There is an assumption that we seek. toform relationship with most attractive person available.
What is the halo effect?
Physical attractiveness may matter as we have preconceived ideas of personality traits attractive people have - universally positive. = physical attractiveness stereotype.
Dion et al found that physically attractive people were consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful comapared to unattractive people.
The belief that attractive people have these characteristics make them more attractive to us = self-fulfilling prophecy.
The halo effect in romantic relationships is how physical attractiveness tends to have disproportionate influence on our judgement of person’s other attributes (personality).
What is the matching hypothesis?
The matching hypothesis (walster&walster) suggests that people choose romantic partners who are of similar attractiveness to them. This means they make a judgement of their own ‘value’ to a potential partner.
Ideally the perfect partner is wanted - but this isn’t always possible so we have to compromise.
The desire for the most physically attractive partner possible is balanced with avoiding being rejected by someone ‘out of our league’ to increase chances of success.
The hypothesis states:
- the more socially desirable the person in terms of attractiveness, social class, intelligence etc, the more desirable they would expect a partner to be.
- couples who are matched are likely to be happier, have a long-lasting relationship than mismatched couples.
- a person rates a potential partner for attractiveness and comparies it with their own level of attractiveness. This comparison determines whether this potential partner is pursued.
Evaluate the Halo Effect theory:
Research support:
Palmer and Peterson found physically attractive people were rated as more plotically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
The PPs even acknowledged that these people had no particular expertise, but were still influenced to believe these views. Danger to democracy?
Halo Effect is present in all aspects of life, even in friendships. Findings have implications for political process - supports theory.
Support:
the definition of attractiveness is consistent across both collectivist and individualist cultures, Cunningham found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were highly attractive to white, hispanic, and asian males. Cross-culturally, this theory is applicable, no cultural bias therefore greater validity.
Weakness of theory:
Towhey gave males and females set of photos and biographical info about people, and asked PPs to judge how much they would like an individual based on just picture.
PPs were also asked to complete questionnaire - MACHO scale - designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Findings: PPs that scored highly on MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness, low scorers less influenced, showing that people with more sexist attitudes are more affected by halo effect, therefore halo effect affects some people more than others. NOT a universal factor.
Evaluate the Matching Hypothesis:
Research support:
Feingold carried out meta-analysis of 17 studies, found a correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. Supports matching hypothesis as actual partners were studied.
HOWEVER - only correlational link - NOT cause and effect…. validity of this can be questioned.
Research contradicting Matching Hypothesis:
‘Computer Dance Study’ by Walster.
752 students bought tickets to computer dance.
When they bought ticket, they were told that info they gave about themselves would be fed into computer and would provide an ‘ideal match’.
BUT, they were actually assigned a random partner.
When students were giving their data, an unseen observer marked them on attractiveness.
After spending 2 hrs with their dates, PPs were asked how much they liked their partner.
Those who were physically attractive were liked the most.
Men asked out a partner if they found her attractive, regardless of how attractive they were.
Study shows that people aim higher than themselves in terms of physical attractiveness, which contradicts the matching hypothesis, that suggests people with similar attractiveness pair up.
