Human relationships Flashcards
Biological explanations for the formation of attraction
Relationship: Association between individuals involving mutual familiarity and understanding.
Natural Selection: Survival ability in a specific environment (fitness).
Sexual Selection: Ability to attract/find a mate and reproduce. Traits that increase reproductive success are passed on.
Anisogamy: Differences in male and female sex cells:
Males: Produce many sperm, easy and frequent.
Females: Produce fewer, larger eggs, requiring more energy and time.
Females are more selective in mate choice due to higher investment in reproduction.
Sexual Selection & Mate Choice:
Males: Look for signs of fertility in females (youth, health).
Females: Seek males who can provide support/resources.
Intrasexual Selection: Same-sex competition (usually males) to win mates, often through strength or dominance.
Intersexual Selection: Mate choice based on traits that signal good genetics, health, or ability to provide resources.
Ronay and von hippel (bio)
Aim:
Investigate if men take greater risks in the presence of an attractive female compared to a male, and if testosterone plays a role in this behavior.
Explore intrasexual selection: males competing to impress potential mates.
Procedure:
Sample: 96 male skateboarders (avg. age 21.58) from skateboard parks.
Conditions: Male researcher (43) vs. female researcher (53).
Task: Perform an “easy” and a “difficult” trick (10 attempts each).
Test: After a break, repeat tricks in front of the same researcher or an attractive 18-year-old female.
Measures: Performance (success, crash landing, aborted), testosterone levels (saliva samples), heart rate (sports watch).
Findings:
Risk-Taking: More risk-taking in front of the attractive female (fewer aborted attempts).
Testosterone: Higher levels in the female researcher condition.
Heart Rate: No significant difference between conditions.
Conclusion:
Men take more risks when an attractive woman is present, possibly linked to increased testosterone levels.
Behavior suggests intrasexual competition—showing physical prowess to impress potential mates.
Ronay and von hippel evaluation
Strengths:
Prospective Design: Observed changes over time, addressing bidirectional ambiguity.
Controlled Variables: Focus on skateboarders’ performance in two conditions (male vs. female researcher).
Limitations:
Extraneous Variables: Natural experiment, lacks control over outside influences.
Sample Bias: Homogenous sample (young male skateboarders), limits generalizability to other populations.
Self-Report Bias: Potential for skewed data due to self-selection of participants.
Buss (bio)
Aims: Investigated evolutionary assumptions about mate selection: men’s preference for youth and beauty, women’s preference for resources, and men’s desire for chastity.
Procedure: 10,047 participants from 33 countries completed surveys on biographical info and mate preferences. Sampling varied, including surveys from marriage license applicants and school samples.
Findings: Supported two assumptions: men prefer younger, attractive mates and women value financial resources. Women also preferred older partners. Chastity was not universally valued, suggesting cultural influence.
Conclusion: Evolutionary theories of mate preferences are largely supported, but chastity’s inconsistent importance highlights cultural factors.
Buss evaluation
The study’s cross-cultural design and back-translation methods enhance its generalizability and reliability, though questions of construct and temporal validity, as well as potential sampling biases, were noted. The 2019 replication study by Zhang et al. showed some consistency but suggested that gender equality could impact mate preferences, indicating that sociocultural factors might also be significant.
The researchers used surveys which provided them with quantitative data. They used a four-point scale which prevents participants from gravitating towards the mean (common trait of likert scales).
The tests provided parallel forms of reliability, that is, the same responses were given on two different forms of survey or test.
The research was carried out in the native language of the participants, and then used back translation methods; this controls whether the meaning of the questions were the same in all languages
Cognitive explanations
Cognitive theories of attraction focus on how internal mental processes, such as perception, evaluation and decision making, influence the formation of personal relationships.
The halo effect is a cognitive bias where individuals use physical attractiveness as a mental shortcut to infer positive traits like kindness or competence, which can affect partner selection. This demonstrates a cognitive explanation as it highlight how perceptions and judgements, rather than biological factors, shape relationship choices.
- influences the formation of relationships by shaping initial impressions of potential partners; becomes a shortcut for assessing other qualities such as personality or compatibility
- cognitive explanation because it highlights the role of mental processes such as perception, judgement and categorisation in partner selection.
Similarly, the matching hypothesis argues that individuals evaluate their own level of attractiveness and cognitively compare it with potential partners to select someone they perceive as an equal match. Both theories emphasise the role of mental processes in simplifying and guiding complex decisions, reinforcing the cognitive approach to explaining how personal relationships are formed.
- explains that people are influenced both by the desirability of a potential partner and the likelihood of reciprocation. Seeking a partner perceived as “out of their league” risks rejection, which can harm self-esteem. By pursuing someone of similar attractiveness, individuals increase their chances of relationship success and emotional security, resulting in more balanced and mutually satisfying relationships
- cognitive explanation because it highlights how self perception, evaluation and risk assessment shape romantic choices.
Dion et al (cog)
Aim: The study investigated whether physically attractive people are assumed to possess more socially desirable personality traits and lead better lives (e.g., being better partners, parents, and more successful in the job market) compared to unattractive individuals.
Procedure:
- Sample: 30 male and 30 female university students from an American university.
- Participants rated three photos (attractive, moderately attractive, unattractive) of people their age on personality traits, predicted happiness, and occupational success.
- Photos were pre-rated for attractiveness by 100 students. Sets of photos, gender, and order were randomly assigned.
- Participants evaluated happiness levels (marital, parental, overall) and suitability for low, average, and high-status occupations.
Findings:
- Attractive individuals were rated highest in predicted happiness (2.17), followed by moderately attractive (1.82), and unattractive individuals (1.52).
- Attractive people were assumed to be more successful and have more positive personality traits but were not predicted to be better parents.
Conclusion: Attractive individuals were perceived as significantly happier and more successful, aligning with positive stereotypes of physical attractiveness. The results illustrate the halo effect, a cognitive bias where judgements about a persons physical attractiveness influence unrelated perceptions of their personality potential.
Dion et al evaluation
- the researchers took measures to support the construct validity of ‘attractiveness’ by having a sample of 100 students from the sample university population rank photos for attractiveness
- the researchers used deception to carry out the study. although this is ethically problematic, it helped to avoid demand characteristics. In debriefings, the participants indicated that they didn’t know the actual aim of the study
- the study’s ecological validity is questionable. When it comes to predicting how we would judge someone we meet online or when reading through job applicants’ resumes, the study could be said to have high ecological validity. However, it is questionable how predictive the results are of real life encounters between people
Biological approach holistic eval
Does not explain individual differences
The theory does not explain why some men prefer older women or why some women do not want children or marriage. These desires often defy an evolutionary explanation. Evolutionary explanations of attraction are on the whole overly deterministic as they rule out the idea that human beings exercise choice and free will in their romantic pairings; they also do not account for the idea that people may have many sexual partners over the years, of varying ages, body shapes and financial means.
Problems with retrospective approach
Yet another criticism of evolutionary explanations is that it is a retrospective approach, largely based on speculations about what may or may not have been evolutionary adaptive for our ancestors. There is no reliable way to check whether these suggestions are true.
Gender bias
Furthermore, evolutionary explanations of mate preference also emphasise the differences in what males and females look for in a potential partner. This exaggeration of the differences between the genders is known as an alpha bias, and the differences between males and females may be overstated. It is plausible to argue that males and females look for similar characteristics, such as loyalty and kindness, and such characteristics are not reported in the research, which tends to look for clear differences.
Taylor et al (cog)
Aim:
To investigate whether the matching hypothesis applies to real-life online dating behavior.
Procedure:
Researchers analyzed the activity of 120 heterosexual participants (60 males, 60 females) from an online dating site who initiated contact with others. They collected 966 profile photos (initiators, reciprocating, and non-reciprocating contacts) and had them rated for attractiveness on a 7-point scale by 14–43 judges per photo. Mean attractiveness scores were calculated for initiators and their contacted users.
Findings:
The initiators showed no correlation between their attractiveness and the attractiveness of the individuals they contacted. Instead, they consistently reached out to people rated as more attractive than themselves.
Conclusion:
The study contradicts the matching hypothesis, suggesting that individuals in online dating often aim for more attractive partners, rather than seeking those of similar attractiveness. This challenges the idea that people prioritize equal desirability in mate selection.
taylor et al evaluation
Strengths
- High ecological validity due to the use of real online dating behavior, free from researcher manipulation.
- Correlational analysis allows easy comparison of quantitative data and identification of associations.
- Large sample of photographs strengthens the robustness of statistical inferences.
Limitations
- Limited generalizability as the study focuses on one dating site and excludes homosexual dating.
- Due to self-presentation biases and aspirational choices, online dating profiles may not reflect reality.
- Attractiveness ratings are subjective and lack consistency over time.
Cognitive explanations holistic evaluation
The halo effect
- applications in real-life contexts: the halo effect has been applied to explain phenomena in various domains, such as hiring decisions, legal judgements, and first impressions in romantic contexts, demonstrating its relevance beyond personal relationships
- the theory oversimplifies complex relationship dynamics by focusing solely on physical attractiveness and neglecting other important factors such as personality and shared interest
The matching hypothesis
- the importance of physical attractiveness varies between individuals. physical attractiveness may not be universally prioritised, contradicting the hypothesis’s claim that it is always central to partner choice.
- the matching hypothesis is more applicable to short-term relationships, as long-term partnerships often emphasise shared values and emotional compatibility over physical attractiveness
Cognitive explanations
- unlike biological theories, cognitive approaches acknowledge that attraction varies between individuals, as mental processes like perception, evaluation, and decision-making are subjective. this makes theories flexible and relevant for understanding diverse relationship dynamics.
- reductionism: cognitive theories focus on mental processes and often overlook sociocultural influences on attraction. research conducted in homogenous university populations may not reflect cultural diversity, limiting generalisability
