Relationship Flashcards
Physical attractiveness: The halo effect (Dion et al 1972)
According to the attractiveness stereotype, we perceive attractive people as also having more attractive personalities.
Attraction & proximity
-Where we live & work influences the friends we make.
-Bossard (1932) ‘more than half of 5000 couples who applied to get married in Philly lived within a few mins walk.
-More availability - more likely to meet people who live closer.
-Mere exposure - the more you’re exposed to an object, the more positively you evaluate it.
-> humans like familiar things, as they make them feel safe & happy.
Evolutionary explanations: Sexual selection (Darwin 1871)
-Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on & may be exaggerated over time.
-Probability of passing on our genes depends on changes of survival & ability to attract a male.
-Darwin says if a male characteristic enhances reproductive success, it’s established as a preference among females so males improve on that trait.
-Goal for males is to outcompete their rivals, mate to ensure child is conceived & ensure child survives long enough to reproduce their genes.
Human reproductive behaviour
-Any behaviours that give opportunity to reproduce & increase survival chances of our genes.
-Basis of evolutionary explanation of reproductive behaviour is that every species goal is to reproduce & pass on their genes.
Sexual selection: Anisogamy
Refers to the differences between male gametes (sperm) & female gametes (egg).
Female gametes:
- Large
- Static
- Limited years of fertility
- Huge investment in time/energy
Male gametes:
- Small
- Extremely mobile
- Infinite supply
- Little expenditure of time/energy
Means there’s no shortage of male mates but fertile females are much rarer, leading to 2 types of sexual selection.
Sexual selection: Inter-sexual selection
-Between the sexes, focusing on the strategies used by males to select females and vice versa.
-Female preferred strategy: Quality over quantity due to higher investment in offspring (ova are rarer than sperm).
Inter-sexual selection: Parental Investment theory (Trivers)
-Females invest more time, commitment, and resources before, during, and after birth.
-Both sexes are choosy, but females face greater consequences of making a poor partner choice, leading to higher selectivity.
-Females seek genetically fit partners who can provide resources.
-If a trait (e.g., height) is considered attractive by females, it increases in the male population over generations, becoming exaggerated through a runaway process.
Inter-sexual selection: Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis
-Genes enhancing reproductive success are passed down.
-Females selecting males with attractive traits produce sons who inherit these traits.
-These sons are more likely to be selected by future generations, perpetuating the preference for the ‘sexy’ trait.
Sexual selection: Intra-sexual selection
-Within each sex, focusing on competition between males to be selected by females.
-Male preferred strategy: Quantity over quality due to abundant sperm supply.
-Males compete for access to females.
-Winners pass on traits that contributed to their success, while losers do not reproduce, preventing the transmission of ‘losing’ characteristics.
Intra-sexual selection: Dimorphism
-Intra-sexual selection leads to physical differences between sexes (dimorphism).
-Males: Larger size provides an advantage in physical competition, increasing reproductive success.
-Females: No competition for reproductive rights, so no evolutionary drive for larger size. Instead, males prefer younger, more fertile women, leading to selection for youthful traits (e.g., low waist-to-hip ratio).
Intra-sexual selection: Behavioural consequences
-Favours traits that help males outcompete rivals.
-Traits such as deceitfulness, intelligence, and aggression may be passed on.
-Males may behave aggressively to acquire and protect fertile females from other males, promoting the selection of aggressive traits in males.
Strength of Evolutionary explanations: Research support for inter-sexual selection
-There’s evidence for role of female choosiness in partner preference.
-Clark & Hatfield sent male & female psych students across Uni campus and had them approach students asking “would you go to bed with me tonight?”
-75% of men said yes & no females agree.
-> Supports idea that females are choosier & males evolve a diff strategy to ensure reproduction.
Counter: too simplistic of an idea that one strategy is adaptive for males & another for females. Seems strats differ based on length of relationship. Males & females are choosier when seeking long term relationships & adopt similar strategies (ie. look for loyal,kind).
-> More complex & nuanced view oh how evolutionary pressures influence partner preferences.
Limitation of Evolutionary explanations: Social & cultural influences underestimated
-Partner preferences have been influenced by changing norms, which develop faster than evolutionary explanation implies due to cultural factors (ie. availability of contraception).
-Women working mean they’re less dependent on men to provide so their mating preferences may no longer be as resource-oriented.
Therefore, partner preferences are influenced by cultural changes.
Strength of Evolutionary explanations: Research support for intra-sexual selection
-Buss carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries.
-Asked questions relating to attributes of evolutionary theory.
-Found females place greater value on resource characteristics (ie. good financial prospects/ambition).
-Males valued physical attractiveness & youth (signs of good reproductive capacity).
Reflects consistent sex differences in partner preferences & supports predictions from sexual selection theory.
Limitation of Evolutionary theory: Homosexuality
Cannot explain partner preferences of gay & lesbian people.
-Homosexual relationships do not assess genetic fitness tho they may other qualities (ie. caring for offspring).
-Lawson looked at personal ads by homosexuals and found their preferences differ, just as they do in heterosexual men & women (men prioritise physical attraction & women, resources).
Limitation of Evolutionary theory: Non-survival genes can be passed on
Some human traits passed on through sexual selection, despite them serving no survival purpose.
-Nettle & Clegg compared a sample of artists & poets to a control group of non-creative men.
-Creative men had more sexual partners than non-creative men.
-Women attracted to creativity.
Weakness explanation as contradictory research for women’s preference of strong masculine traits.
Factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure (Jourard 1971)
-Self-disclosure involved revealing personal info about yourself.
-Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops.
-These revelations strengthen the relationship & builds trust if used appropriately.
-People reveal more intimate info to those they like & tend to like those who they tell intimate things to.
Self disclosure: Social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor)
-Involves gradual process of revealing your inner-self to someone.
-Involves reciprocal exchange of into between partners.
-Trust builds and partners build trust and penetrate more deeply into each others lives & understand each other.
Self disclosure: Breadth & depth (Altman & Taylor)
-Important factors in SD - as breadth & depth increases, so does committment.
-Metaphor of onion - reveal superficial info first & move into intimate details later.
-Restricted breadth at first (some topics are off limits) & as depth increases, so can breadth.
-Initial breadth is narrow to prevent TMI, which may threaten the relationships chance to keep going.
-Eventually, we peel back layers and reveal intimate, high-risk info (painful/sensitive).
-Depenetration is how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship.
Self-disclosure: Reciprocity (Reis & Shaver)
-To increase breadth & depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element where a partner disclosed something and the other responds in a rewarding way, empathetically & with own thoughts.
-Revelations display trust, to help develop relationship.
-Only works if both of the pair share. If only one does, & other doesn’t, it shows a lack of willing intimacy.
-Gradual process of revealing inner self which requires the other to do the same.
Self-disclosure: Norms of self-disclosure
-Norms for how and when self-disclosure should occur.
-Grzelak suggests that neither so personal that the disclosed appears indiscriminate for disclosing to a stranger but also not so impersonal that the listener is unable to know the discloser better as a result.
-The more someone discloses, the more they expect in return.
Strength of Self-disclosure: Research support (Collins & Miller)
-Meta-analysis found that people who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels, & people like others as a result of having disclosed to them.
-Relationship between disclosure & liking was stronger if the recipient believed the disclosure was shared only with them rather than shared indiscriminately with others.
-Sprecher & Hendricks found strong correlation between satisfaction & self-disclosure in heterosexual dating couples.
-> Strengthens validity of the explanation & strong links.
Counter: Most self-disclosure research is correctional. Another explanation could be that, the more satisfied a partner is, the kroe they self-disclose. Or, they could both be independant and caused by another variable (ie. how much time they spend together).
-> Reduces validity.
Strength of Self-disclosure: Real-world application
Research has helped people who want to improve communication in their relationships.
-People use self-disclosure to increase intimacy & strengthen their bond.
-Haas & Stafford found 57% of homosexuals found open & honest self-disclosure was how they deepened their relationships.
-If less skilled partners (small-talkers) use this, it can bring several benefits to their relationships in deepening commitment & satisfaction.
Shows how research can be valuable in helping people who are having problems in their relationships.
Evaluation of Self-disclosure: Boom & bust phenomenon (Cooper & Sportolari)
-Researchers suggested internet realtoonships involve higher levels of self-disclosure.
-Potentially since it’s easier to disclose to someone you’re not close to, as there’s less risk and fear of being judged.
-People reveal more sensitive info than they would in face-to-face interactions and things get intense quick (boom).
-However, the underlying trust isn’t there so the relationship is difficult to sustain (bust).
This may explain why many individuals who are sure they found their soulmates, leave an established relationship.
Limitation of Self-disclosure: Cultural differences
Not true for all culture that increasing depth & breadth = satisfaction.
-Tang et al found men and women in US (individualist) self-disclose more sexual thoughts than men and women in China (collectivist).
-However, lower disclosure didn’t mean less satisfaction.
-Cultural norms also shape condor ability of men & women with self-disclosure. Japanese women prefer lower disclosure, to men. & Western women tend to prefer it to men.
Self-disclosure is a limited explanation and based on findings from individualist cultures, so not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
-Shackelford & Larsen suggest that people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive.
-This could be because it’s a signal of genetic fitness.
-People also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as wide eyes, small nose, because they trigger a protective instinct.
Physical attractiveness: The halo effect
-We have preconceived ideas about personality traits people must have & they’re almost universally positive.
-Dion states “what is beautiful is good.” Found physically attractive people are consistently rated kind, strong, sociable & successful compared to unattractive people.
-We then behave positively towards them which is an example of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Physical attractiveness: The matching hypothesis (Walster & Walster)
-Suggests we look for partners who are similar to us, in terms of physical attractiveness, instead of the most appealing option.
-Though both individuals would be attracted to the most socially desirable potential partners, they opt for partners of similar social desirability to themselves (‘in their league’, to maximise chance of a successful outcome.
The matching hypothesis - The computer dance (Walster et al)
-Males & females invited to a dance & rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers & completed a questionnaire about themselves.
-Told the data about themselves (personality,self-esteem etc) & that info would help decide partner (randomly selected in reality).
-The hypothesis’ were;
-> attractuve people expect attractive partner
-> couples equally matched are happier
-> person rated partner for attractiveness & compared it with themselves
The computer dance - Walster et al - Findings
-Hypothesis not supported. The most liked partners were also the most physical attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account.
The computer dance - Berscheid et al
-Replicated study but allowed ppts to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness - people tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
-We do seek & choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own.
Therefore, choice of partner is a compromise - as we risk rejection by selecting the most attractive people available so we settle for those in our physical league.
Strength of Physical attractiveness: Halo effect research support
