relationships Flashcards
Outline sexual selection
Darwin 1871
- evolutionary explanation of partner preference
-selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction are passed onto offspring and trait with become exaggerated over generations
- through process of heredity
Outline examples of sexual selection
aggression: (in males) is adaptive because it provides an advantage for males over competitors for reproductive rights
fertility: (in woman) narrow waist and large hips
Define Anisogamy
- the differences between male and female gametes
For example : the differing size of gametes and energy invested in their production whether they are static or mobile , and intervals in which they are produced
men: small gamete , highly mobile , created continuously in vast numbers from puberty and don’t need energy to be produced
female: large gamete , highly immobile , provided at intervals for limited number of fertile years and require significant investment of energy
Outline Inter-sexual selection
- selection between sexes
-strategies that each sex uses to attract the other - “quality over quantity” approach and is favoured by females as they invest more energy into the development of the ova : produced at limited intervals across their lives
- Females will be more “choosy” about who they decide to mate with due to limited reproductive resources : experience more post-coital responsibility compared to males
evolutionary standpoint: enables the high quality of her offspring
Outline an example of inter-sexual selection
Fisher’s sexy son hypothesis- suggests that through a female choosing to mate with an attractive male , her son will also grow to be attractive “Sexy”
: thus son more likely to have evolutionary advantage of attracting females
- ensures females genes are passed through several generations : genes remain in gene pool
Outline Intra-sexual selection
- selection within sexes : competition between males to mate w females
-strategies between males to be the one that is selected
-“quantity over quality” favoured by males : produce sperm continuously throughout their lifetime with little energy investment and limited post-coital
-leads to dimorphism : physical difference between male and female sexes
According to Anisogamy, the male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate w/ many fertile females = behavioural consequence of having a preference for symbols of youth/fertility.
Outline examples of intra-sexual selection
males behaving aggressively and being
protective of their female (reducing the likelihood that she will be impregnated by another competing male)
being larger (and so more sexually desirable to women), as well as possessing certain facial and physical characteristics
(e.g. strong jawlines and broad shoulders).
eval points for evolutionary explanation
LIMITATIONS
cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian woman
-overlooks influence of social and cultural factors on partner preference
STRENGTHs
evidence supporting that females are more selective when it comes to potential mates
cp: sexual statergies theory : both men and woman are choosy
Evaluate limitation of the evolutionary explanation to partner preferences
( hetereonormativity)
cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian woman :
- mainly bc : homosexual relationships are not assessing genetic fitness (otherfactors)
-Lawson et al looked at “personal ads” placed by hetero and homo men and woman & found preferences in in homo men and women differ from hetereo (men emphasised attractiveness and women : resources)
- cant generalise : heteronormativity bias
Evaluate limitation of the evolutionary explanation to partner preferences
( social and cultural )
overlooks the influence of social and cultural factors on partner preference
-partner preferences have dramatically been influenced/adjusted by rapid changing social norms (century)
-these develop faster than evolutionary timescale implies : come ab due to cultural factors
- womans greater role in workplace means they are no longer dependant on men to provide : argued that this Social change has had lead to change in womans preferences for men (not resource orientated)
-combination of cultural and evolutionary (interactonist) - can be limited etc if does not account for both
Evaluate strength of evolutionary explanation for partner preference
(females “choosy”)
evidence supporting that females are more selective when it comes to potential mates:
- due to greater energy and genetic input into pregnancy and care for child
-Clark and Hatfield 1989 : found through a college experiment : 75% of males compared to 0% of females were willing to sleep with stranger when approached and complimented - supports the idea : men have an evolutionary predisposition to to want to impregnante as many woman as possible: as high rate of sperm prod and little energy
(anisogamy) also supports dff n male selection strategies i.e inter & intra
CP : reductionist : sexual statergies theory argues both men and woman are choosy : evolutionary pressure influences are much more complex taking into account context of reproductive behaviour
Outline the filter theory for a factor in affecting attraction in a romantic relationship
kerckhoff and davis 1962
- we are initially exposed to a “field of availables”
-in order to form relationships field must be narrowed to “field of desirables” depending on 3 filters:
- social democracy
- similarity in attitudes
- complementarity
-importance of each filter depends on whether relationship is LT or ST
Outline the social democracy filter
- FIRST filter of filter theory
- factors which make potential partners attractive to us
-this is the idea of similarity in terms of religion , sexuality , ethnicity , social class , educational attainment and proximity - two people sharing similar social demographic features are more likely to find each other attractive
- Proximity is key : provides accessibility which makes communication and relationship formation between partners easier : regular access to one another
- close proximity may “trump” dissimilarities in other social demographic features
- homogamy: more likely to form relationship w someone who is socially and culturally similar
Outline the similarity in attitudes filter
- SECOND filter in filter theory
- particularly important in short term relationship i.e less than 18 months
- basic similarities in terms of core beliefs about significant topics e.g : love , sex , religion
- this encourages greater and deeper communication : promoting self disclosure
-large dissimilarities in attitudes : cause relationship to end : due to incompatibility in LT (Bryne 1997)
Outline complementarity in attitudes filter
- THIRD level of filter
- K&D found that this need was important in LT relationships
- relationship more likely to be successful when two partners complement each-others traits : “completing” each other making a “whole” : adding depth to the relationship : can flourish
-opposites attract : E.G someone who likes to laugh having a partner who is funny and likes to make others laugh - one likes to nurture , partner likes to be nurtured
Eval points of filter theory
STRENGTHS :
- research evidence from Winch 1958
CP: temporal validity : social change :still applicable today?
LIMITATIONS:
- reductionist : abusive relationship
-suffers from cultural bias
- montoya - meta analysis - may percieve to be more similar
Evaluate a strength of the filter theory as a factor for affecting attraction
research evidence initial development of relationships
- Winch 1958 conducted a research in which he found that similarities in beliefs and attitudes was cited as one of the main attractive features in an ideal partner of the respondents
- in line with the predictions of the matching hypothesis made by filter theory : complementary and narrowing into field of desirables
- increase validity : real life example : high ecol validity : needed in LT relationships
CP: may lack temporal validity : research of 1958 : many social changes since that time : e.g social media etc may have a greater influence
Evaluate limitation of the filter theory (reductionist)
Reductionist
- simplifies complex phenomena of romantic relationships into a 3 step filter theory : ignores
- limits the range of real life romantic explanations that it can explain
- e.g : cannot explain why many people stay in long term relationships despite lack of complementary explained by theory (AS needed FACTOR IN LTR)
- suggests holistic approach to studying romantic relationships may be better suited to explaining complexity of relationship maintenance
Evaluate a limitation of filter theory (cultural bias)
suffers from cultural bias
- most research taken from individualist cultures : more likely to value free choice in relationship : desirability : individual preference
- can apply filter theory to these cultures without influence from others
-cannot apply to collectivist cultures: marriage more likely to be arranged : partners cannot apply individualist filters on who their future partner will be
- filter theory suffers from cultural bias : assuming findings from west apply to other cultures (cultural relativism) reducing universality
Evaluate a strength of the filter theory
actual similarity matters less in a relationship than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar
- e.g meta analysis of 313 studies - Montoya et al 2008 : actual similarity only affected attraction in very ST lab based interactions
- in real world , **perceived ** similarity was a greater predicator of of attraction
-therefore : can interpret : partners may perceive greater similarity as they become more attracted to one another
-perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction not a cause : not predicted by the filter model
Define self disclosure
-revealing personal information about yourself
-romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops
-self disclosure about ones deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately
Outline the social penetration theory (self-disclosure)
Altman and Taylor proposed this theory
- process of
self-disclosure allows one person to penetrate deeper into the life of their partner : revealing your deepest thoughts and secrets - stage of relationship is serious and characterised by trust and increases intimacy
-important to be selective about what one chooses to disclose
- only likely to occur if the exchange of such information is reciprocal
Outline the breath and depth of self-disclosure
2 elements of self disclosure
Onion anaology
- as relationship progresses, more layers of the onion is removed
-info disclosed upon first is superficial and “on the surface” and “low risk”
- kind of information we would disclose to strangers, colleagues etc.
-Revealing intimate details about oneself at the beginning of a relationship may be detrimental effects
e.g. revealing ‘too much information’. TMI!
-As relationship progresses : self disclosure becomes deeper : progressively removing + layers revealing our true selves
- eventually reveal intimate high risk info : secrets
Outline importance of reciprocity in self disclosure
when revealing more layers:disclosing something that reveals your true self
-partner must respond in a way that is rewarding e.g empathy and also their own intimate thoughts etc
balance of self disclosure in a relationship : successful relationship : deeper relationship
EVAL POINTS FOR SELF DISCLOSURE
STRENGTHS
-research support : Sprecher and strong correlation of satisfation and self disclosure for both partners
CP : correlational study
-real world applications
LIMITATIONS
-cultural differences :
strength of self disclosure (research support)
Sprecher and Hendrick
-self disclosure derived from penetration theory
- studies hetereosexual relationships : strong positive correlation between levels of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners
-in a later study : spretcher et al found that : relationships closer and more satisfying when partners take turn to self disclose (reciprocated)
Counterpoint: correlational study: assumed that greater self disclosure leads to more satisfaction : this is not causational
Other factors, such as the amount of time partners spend together, could influence both self-disclosure and satisfaction independently. (third variable)
strength of self disclosure (real world applications)
-research into self disclosure Can help those who want to improve communication within their relationship
- couples with high levels of intimacy and commitment within their relationships, 57% reported the use of self-disclosure as a way to maintain it
- use of therapies which focus on increasing the depth and breadth of self-disclosure forcouples who struggle with intimacy (iincreases trust)
-these predictions have been made by the SPT : increasing validity
limitaition of self disclosure (research support)
may not be universally applicable due to cultural differences.
Tang et al. (2013)
found that romantic partners in China disclosed less sexual thoughts and feelings compared to those in the USA, yet both cultures reported high levels of relationship satisfaction.
This suggests that self-disclosure is not a necessity for successful relationships in all cultures, which challenges the cultural bias inherent in Social Penetration Theory.
Outline the factors affecting attraction in a romantic relationship
- self disclosure
-physical attractiveness
-filter theory
What are the Theories of romantic relationships?
-SET
-Equity theory
-Rusbult’s model
-Ducks phase model
-
Definition of physical attraction
How appealing we find a person’s face:
- We seek to form a relationship with the most attractive person available.
Explain the Importance of Physical attractiveness
-Shackleford and Larsen
Symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive as they signal genetic fitness.
Neotenous features trigger a caring instinct = valuable resource for females that want to reproduce.
- McNulty = initial attractiveness that brought partners together will be an important factor in marriage even years later.
Definition of the Halo effect
The tendency to have preconceived ideas about the personality traits people have based on physical attractiveness: (physical attractiveness stereotype)
- One distinguishing feature tend to have a disproportionate influence our judgement on a person’s other attributes.
Dion: ‘what is beautiful is good’
= Physically attractive ppl are consistently rated as kind, successful and sociable compared to unattractive ppl.
= Belief that attractive ppl have these characteristics = they become more attractive, so we treat them better.
Definition of the matching hypothesis
States that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other:
- We desire the most attractive partner for evolutionary, social, cultural and psychological reasons BUT we must balance against this to avoid being rejected.
- We must make a realistic judgement of our own value to a potential partner.
Evidence for the. matching hypothesis
Ellen Berscheid
-replicated Walster’s study: however individuals were able to select their partners from people of varing levels of attractiveness
- found : participants tended to choose partners who matched them in terms of physical attractiveness
- to avoid rejection
eval points for physical attractiveness
STRENGTHS
-research support for halo effect
-support for the matching hypothesis
- CP: cannot generalise : Taylor : studied activity logs of famous dating websites : found : online daters sought meeting w those more PA to them
LIMITATIONS
-Individual differences as some don’t attach importance to PA.
