relationships Flashcards
what is sexual selection?
evolutionary explanation of partner preference. attributes or behaviors that increase chances of reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
examples of sexual selections
male peacocks tail is a likely sign of genetic fitness. Other characteristics such as aggressiveness are adaptive because they provide an advantage over competition.
anisgomy
difference between male and female sex gametes. Male gametes are small, mobile, are in large numbers and are created for a long time. Female gametes are large, static, produced in a limited number of years and require a lot of energy to produce. A limitation of this is that fertile females are much rarer than males. It gives rise to the two types of sexual selection
inter- sexual selection
BETWEEN the sexes. strategies males use to select females or females select males.
preferred strategy of the female, due to quality over quantity (ova are rarer than sperm)
Robert Trivers pointed out: it is a necessity for females to choose carefully due to the female making a greater investment of time and commitment during the before after and birth of her offspring. There are larger consequences with choosing the wrong partner. Both sexes are choosy, but females have to be especially selective
It is the females preference that determines which features are passed into the offspring. E.g height preference means more taller males in successive generations.
sexy sons hypothesis
Ronald Fisher: the genes we see today are those enhanced by reproductive success. A female who mates with a male for a certain characteristics will then have sons that have this trait. They are then more likely to be selected. ‘sexy’ trait is perpetrated
intra-sexual selection
WITHIN each sex. E.g. strategies between the males so they are the one that is chosen. This is the preferred strategy of the male, quantity over quality. characteristics of the competition winner are passed through successive generations.
This leads to male and female characteristics being very different, since attributes such as large size are successive, when females don’t this. However it can be argued female youthfulness is selected as males prefer more fertile females (e.g. waist to hip ratio in humans
can be behavioral consequences as negative attributes such as aggression and deceitfulness allowed the male to win and is then passed down
evaluation for sexual selection
-research support for inter-sexual relationships :study with university campus students where they asked ‘would you like to go to bed with me tonight’ where 75% of males agreed and none of the females did, supporting the idea that females are more choosy for their partners.
-COUNTERPOINT: simplistic argument. Strategies are different depending on the length of the relationship. Bereckzei et al argues that there is similarities when choosing a partner for a LT relationship.
-research support for intra-sexual selection: survey for over 10,000 adults in 33 countries relating to important evolutionary attributes for preference. Findings showed woman placed greater preference on resource related characteristics while males were youth attractiveness. Supports idea different preferences in sexes.
-social and cultural differences are under estimate: Woman’s greater role in the work place means they no longer need men to supply for them. So no longer resource oriented preferences.
what is self disclosure?
revealing personal information about yourself (such as deep feelings) Romantic partners will do this as their relationships develop, and these can strengthen a romantic bond.
what is the social penetration theory
Altman and Taylor’s theory on how relationships develop: gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else. In romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of information. It occurs so partners obtain a greater understanding of each other.
The depth and breadth of self disclosure
according to taylors and altman, self disclosure hs two elements (breadth and depth).
-as these increase so does a relationship. At the beggining we do disclose stuff about ourselves, but it is only the outer layer of the onion otherwise we may get ‘TMI’ response which may even threaten a relationship.
-as a relationship develops we ‘peel back the onion layers’ and end up talking about deep feelings and painful secrets.
-for a relationship to develop and increase in this it needs to be reciprocal.
self disclosure evaluation
-research support: correlations were found in heterosexual dating to show that men and woman who used self disclosure were more satisfied and committed to their relationship. A later study also showed that they were closer with self disclosure. This increases validity to the theory
COUNTERPOINT: correlation is not causation, it cannot tell us if this is a valid conclusion the draw. Alternative results may be likely, for example the partners may self disclosed the more satisfied they are rather than the other way round. Or a third variable could be present.
Real world application: research found 57% of homosexual men and woman said that self disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships. This shows psychological input can be valuable to solving real life relationship problems.
Cultural differences: research showed US (individualist culture) tend to self disclose more than China (collectivist culture), but satisfaction levels were the same. This therefore makes it a limited explanation as the information is not generalisable.
physical attraction meaning
factor in forming romantic relationships. How appealing we find a persons face.
General agreement a cross culture to what we find attractive.
E.g., symmetrical faces and baby faces.
What is the halo effect?
One distinguishing feature tends to have a tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgments about the persons attributes, such as personality. Research has found physically attractive people are constantly rated as good, sociable kind and successful.
What is the matching hypothesis? (attractiveness)
we are attracted to someone who is of the same physical attractiveness as us, instead of the most attractive person. This implies that we take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’ to others when we are seeking out a partner.
describe the procedure of research on the matching hypothesis
‘The computer dance’
male and female students were invited to a dance and were rated in physical attractiveness by objective observers and filled out a questionnaire about themselves. They were then told data about themselves and that a computer would decide their partner based on this data when in reality they were paired up randomly
describe the findings of research on the matching hypothesis
The hypothesis was no supported- most liked were also the most physically attractive rather than them taking their own level of attractiveness. A replication of this study was conducted where people were allowed to chose their partner based on a selection of people who were different levels of attractiveness, and this time matched pairs were more present.
Evaluation on the halo effect- research support
research support:
-Palmer and Peterson found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This persisted even when people found out they had no particular expertise. This suggests there are dangers for democracy if people are judged as suitable for office just because of their physical attractiveness.
Evaluation of factors affecting attraction- physical attractiveness: Evolutionary explanation
Cunningham et al found that women who had features of large eyes, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men. this concludes that physical attractiveness is continuous across societies. This could be due to sexual selection, as attractive features are a sign of genetic fitness and are there fore perpetrated similarly in multiple cultures.
Evaluation of matching hypothesis with challenging research
not supported by real world research: study into online dating logs that involves actual choices rather than just preferences. Findings showed that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. This undermines the validity as it contradicts the central prediction about matching attractiveness.
counter point to evaluation of matching hypothesis with challenging research
-choosing them for dating could be seen as different in real life relationships. A meta analysis showed a significant correlation between physical attractiveness in partners. Just because online daters seek someone more attractive does not mean they get them, so dating selection may just be as fantasy as it is in lab research. Therefore there is support for the matching hypothesis from studies of real world established romantic partners
What is the filter theory?
an explanation of relationship formation. A series of different factors reduces the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities. The filters are: social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementary.
What is the 1st level of filter?
social demography
explain social demography as the 1st filter
Includes social class and geographical location, ethnicity, religion etc. These filters therefore filter out a large number of available partners, meaning relationships are often formed with people under similar demographic characteristics. (homo gamy)
What is the 2nd level of filter?
similarity in attitudes
