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
- Overly deterministic and ignores individual differences
Evolutionary theories don’t explain why some men prefer older women or why some women avoid children or marriage. They ignore free will, assuming people always act based on biology — yet real-life preferences vary widely and can’t always be linked to survival or reproduction. - Retrospective and speculative
These theories rely on guesses about what helped our ancestors survive. Since we can’t test past behaviours directly, the explanations lack solid evidence and are difficult to prove or disprove.
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
Sociocultural explanations of relationships
The sociocultural perspective explains relationship formation through the influence of cultural norms, social values, and societal structures. It highlights how different cultures shape expectations around love, marriage, and partner selection. For example, Western individualistic societies tend to prioritise passionate love and personal choice, viewing marriage as the outcome of romantic connection. In contrast, collectivistic cultures, such as many in Asia, place more value on family approval, social harmony, and long-term compatibility. Cultural psychologists argue that passionate love is a Western ideal, not a universal one. This view is supported by studies like Levine et al. (1995), which found that participants in collectivistic cultures were more willing to marry without love, and Gupta & Singh (1982), who found higher long-term satisfaction in arranged marriages. Overall, the sociocultural explanation emphasises that relationships are not formed in isolation but are deeply embedded in cultural context.
Guta and Singh (socio)
Aim: To compare levels of liking and loving in arranged and love marriages over time using Rubin’s scale of attachment, caring, and intimacy.
Procedure: 50 couples (25 in arranged marriages, 25 in love marriages) from the University of Rajasthan were interviewed separately. They answered questions based on Rubin’s scale, which measures attachment, caring, and intimacy. Marriages ranged from under a year to over 20 years, allowing for an analysis of changes over time.
Findings: Love marriages started with high scores, but these declined over time. Arranged marriages began with lower scores but showed an increase as time passed.
Conclusion: Arranged marriages may lead to stronger romantic feelings in the long run, while love marriages experience a decline in these emotions over time.
Gupta and Singh eval (socio)
Strength (PEEL):
Point: A key strength of the study is its use of Rubin’s scale, which provides a standardized and objective measure of attachment, caring, and intimacy.
Evidence: By using this validated scale, the study ensures that both arranged and love marriages are assessed consistently. This allows for an accurate comparison of how romantic feelings change over time, as seen in the study’s findings that love marriages decline in intimacy while arranged marriages increase.
Explanation: The use of Rubin’s scale enhances the reliability of the study, as it ensures that participants’ feelings are measured in a structured way rather than relying on subjective opinions.
Link: As a result, the study’s conclusions—that arranged marriages may lead to stronger romantic feelings over time while love marriages decline—are more trustworthy, as they are based on an established psychological framework.
Weakness (PEEL):
Point: A limitation of the study is its reliance on self-reported data, which may be affected by social desirability bias.
Evidence: Participants in arranged marriages may have felt pressure to report higher levels of intimacy and caring over time, as arranged marriages are culturally significant in India, and admitting dissatisfaction could be frowned upon. This could explain why the study found an increase in intimacy in arranged marriages, even if this may not reflect reality.
Explanation: Since participants may have exaggerated their responses, the study’s validity is reduced, as the reported trends might not fully represent true romantic feelings.
Link: Consequently, the study’s claim that arranged marriages become more successful over time may be overstated, as the results could be influenced by participants’ desire to conform to social norms rather than actual changes in love and intimacy.
Buss (socio)
Aim:
Buss (1989) investigated evolutionary mate selection across 33 countries, examining whether (1) men prefer youth/attractiveness for reproductive value, (2) women prioritize financial stability, and (3) men value chastity for paternity certainty.
Procedure:
10,047 participants completed two surveys on mate preferences, using ranking and a four-point scale. Data was collected via diverse sampling methods.
Findings:
Supported: Women valued financial prospects; men preferred younger, attractive mates.
Partially Supported: Women preferred older partners, aligning with resource provision theories.
Not Universal: Chastity varied across cultures, suggesting cultural influences.
Cultural Differences: Love ranked highest in the U.S. but lower in collectivist cultures, where traditional gender roles influenced mate preferences.
Conclusion:
Collectivist cultures showed stronger traditional gender roles, shaping mate selection. Cultural norms may moderate evolutionary tendencies.
Buss eval (socio)
Cross-cultural design & back-translation → Enhances reliability and generalizability.
Parallel forms reliability → Consistent responses across different survey formats.
Construct & temporal validity concerns → Changing social norms may impact results.
Subjectivity of “love” → Cultural variation affects interpretation.
2019 replication (Zhang et al.) → Found some consistency but highlighted gender equality as a factor in mate preferences.
Sociocultural holistic eval
unlike biological theories, sociocultural theories account for cultural differences in what people find attractive
Several studies are experimental in nature and can be replicated to establish reliability
The theories are seen as less deterministic and more holistic.
Cultural research has the tendency to stress the differences between cultures when in actuality there may be more similarities than differences. Culture also changes over time, so we may be moving toward a more globalised version of attraction.
Deterministic explanation which ignores the notion of free will; individual choice, even when within a sociocultural framework, is still individual choice.
Using the biological explanations, cognitive and sociocultural, this is when we can fain a more holistic picture in trying to gain an explanation for the formation of relationships, allowing for a more nuanced understanding. Therefore, it is important that we as a society are integrated in our approach to understanding the formation of human relationships.
Communication
Social Penetration Theory(Altman & Taylor, 1973) argues that close relationships are formed by a process of gradual self-disclosure - that is, sharing personal things about yourself with someone that you trust. The researchers argue that self-disclosure leads to self-validation. They argue that disclosure is part of the cost-benefit analysis that takes place in any relationship.
There are four main stages of social penetration:
- The Orientation Stageis often referred to as “small talk.” It involves sharing Simple information about oneself without revealing anything that would reveal vulnerability. For example, I am American. I live in Prague. I am a student. There is a low risk at this level of communication.
- The Exploratory Stage: One starts to reveal more about one’s feelings and opinions—but still on rather “safe” topics. These may include thoughts on the current government, what we like and don’t like about our jobs, and thoughts on the future. This is the stage at which many friendships stay.
- The Affective Stage: Beginning to share information of a private/personal nature. Often, this stage also involves intimate physical relations.
- The Stable Stage: One feels that they can be honest and open with a partner. Trust is strongly developed. One can predict the other person’s emotional reactions.
Bradbury and Fincham(1990) performed a meta-analysis of studies on couples and how they communicated. The researchers found that couples in happy relationships engage in relationship-enhancing patterns when there is disagreement—that is, they don’t blame their partner or assume that the partner did things “on purpose.”
Negative behaviors are attributed to situational factors. Unhappy couples blame their partners for what happens and don’t give them credit for positive events. He called this adistress-maintaining patternof behavior.
How we communicate about problems in our relationships and how we attribute blame for negative behavior could determine whether a relationship will end. It is important, however, to consider if it is the quality of the relationship that leads to negative communication or the attributional style that leads to the breakdown of a relationship.
Collins and Miller (communication/ change and breakdown)
Aim:
To investigate the relationship between self-disclosure and liking, both of which play a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of relationships, through a meta-analysis.
Procedure:
Collins and Miller conducted a meta-analysis by reviewing studies from 1955-1992, using Psychological Abstracts to locate relevant research under keywords like self-disclosure, liking, and attraction. Studies were included if they:
- Measured/manipulated self-disclosure and liking/attraction.
- Did not involve clinical populations or therapy analogues.
- Provided enough statistical data for effect size calculation.
They conducted separate meta-analyses for different self-disclosure-liking effects and explored moderating variables.
Findings:
- Disclosure → Liking: People who disclose more tend to be liked more.
- Liking → Disclosure: Initial liking had a weak effect on disclosure in first encounters but was stronger in ongoing relationships.
- Disclosure to Others → Liking: People like those to whom they have disclosed.
Conclusion:
Self-disclosure and liking are strongly linked, playing a key role in relationship development. People like those who disclose more and those they have disclosed to. The relationship between liking and disclosure depends on relationship duration, emphasizing self-disclosure’s symbolic function in interpersonal bonds.
Collins and Miller’s findings highlight how effective self-disclosure fosters liking and connection, suggesting that poor or reduced communication (e.g., lack of disclosure) could contribute to relationship breakdown. As relationships evolve, if disclosure doesn’t keep pace or becomes negative, it may signal emotional distance and weaken relational bonds, supporting theories like Duck’s model of relationship breakdown, where communication deterioration is a key stage.
Collins and Miller eval
Strength: High Generalisability
- The meta-analysis included 74 studies spanning 33 years, ensuring a large sample size and high external validity.
- The variety of cultures, regions, and time periods makes the findings applicable to a broad population.
Weakness: Double Selection Bias
- Publication Bias: The meta-analysis included only published studies, which tend to report significant findings, potentially inflating effect sizes.
- Researcher Bias: The researchers may have selected studies supporting their hypothesis, reducing objectivity.
- However, sampling biases may balance each other out, reducing the impact of individual biases.
Bradbury and fincham (change and breakdown)
Aim:
To investigate the relationship between marital satisfaction and communication patterns in married couples.
Procedure:
- Participants: 47 married couples (average marriage length: 8.5 years) were recruited via local media advertisements. Couples who had attended marriage counseling were excluded.
- Survey: Participants completed a marital satisfaction questionnaire.
-
Individual Session: Each spouse separately:
- Identified major problems in their marriage.
- Attributed causes and responsibility for these issues.
- Discussed a problem they recognized but their spouse did not.
- Joint Discussion: Couples discussed a mutual problem for 15 minutes in a laboratory setting, while their interaction was video recorded.
- Analysis: Three trained researchers independently coded the recordings to identify relationship-enhancing and distress-maintaining communication patterns.
Findings:
-
Lower marital satisfaction was linked to distress-maintaining communication, such as:
- Blaming the partner for problems.
- Attributing negative behaviors to selfish or intentional motives.
- These couples also displayed more hostility and were less receptive to positive communication from their partner.
Conclusion:
The study suggests a strong correlation between communication styles and marital satisfaction. Couples with lower satisfaction tend to engage in negative communication patterns, which may contribute to ongoing relationship difficulties. However, due to the correlational nature of the study, it is unclear whether negative communication causes dissatisfaction or dissatisfaction leads to negative communication.
Bradbury and Fincham eval
Strengths:
✅ Triangulation Increases Reliability:
- Three independent researchers coded the interactions, reducing bias and increasing inter-rater reliability.
✅ Ecological Validity:
- The study used real couples discussing real marital problems, making the findings more applicable to real-life relationships.
Weaknesses:
❌ Bidirectional Ambiguity:
- It is unclear whether negative communication leads to marital dissatisfaction or vice versa.
❌ Lack of Control Over Variables:
- Factors like mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety) were not accounted for, despite their potential impact on communication.
Communication/ change and breakdown holistic eval
(Social penetration)
There are several criticisms of this theory. First, it is difficult to determine a cause-and-effect relationship between disclosure and the health of a relationship. It appears more likely that disclosure results from a healthy relationship rather than acauseof one. In addition, much research on this topic has been conducted on Western women. This means that there is a significant sampling bias. Men and women appear to have different disclosure patterns, so the theory may be overly simplistic. Finally, as with all theories about relationships, using only this one argument to explain the health of a relationship is reductionist.
(Distress maintaining and relationship enhancing communication)
Of course, there may be many other reasons for a relationship to succeed or fail. Arguing that it all comes down to attributional styles may be a bit reductionist. There is also the problem that in highly dysfunctional relationships - for example, cases of domestic violence - a pattern of seeing the negative behaviors of a partner as only situational and not potentially dispositional can lead to excusing violent behaviors.
