Relationships Flashcards
Sexual Selection
Darwin’s (1871) evolutionary explanation states that partner preference is driven by sexual selection
which means males and females choose their partners in order to maximise reproductive success - not survival.
physical characteristics show a sign of genetic fitness that increase reproductive success are passed on
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Males
Demands/Reasons Anisogamy- Sperm is continuously
made/does not need much energy, Men remain fertile
throughout lives, Not sure of paternity
Human Reproductive Behaviour- Promiscuous, Short term mating with multiple, fertile females
Intra-sexual selection- Young attractive fertile females
Inter-sexual selection- Males compete against other males for access to fertile females. Males mainly take part in intra SS
Females
Demands/Reasons Anisogamy- Eggs are expensive, Fertile for around 30 years, Sure of maternity
Human Reproductive Behaviour- Long term mating, Choosy
Intra-sexual selection- Strong, dominant resourceful male, Females take part in inter SS – choosy!
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences AO3
Research to support the evolutionary explanation for partner preferences was conducted by Buss (1989). He carried out a survey on over 10,000 participants from 33 countries and asked questions relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preferences. He found that males prefer youthful, physically attractive females, whereas females prefer resources such as good finances, ambitious males. These findings reflect sex differences in sexual selection, therefore supporting predictions of partner preferences made by the evolutionary explanation.
Research to support the sex differences in human reproductive behaviour was conducted by Clarke and Hatfield (1989). They had males and females approach members of the opposite sex and asked the question, “Will you have sex with me?”. He found that 75% of males said yes to the female whereas 0% of females agreed to have sex with the male. This therefore supports the differences in human reproductive behaviour of males as females as it demonstrates the idea that females are choosy and males are promiscuous.
Moreover, the evolutionary explanation of partner preferences can be criticised for biological determinism. This is because the theory states that the individual is controlled by internal factors, such as their genes that will inevitably control their choice of partner and reproductive behaviour. Therefore, it neglects the role of free will and choice that individuals have and could leave individuals feeling as if they have no control over their partner preferences, thus limiting the evolutionary theory as an explanation of males and female partner preferences.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-disclosure
- Revealing personal info about yourself
- Share likes and dislikes.
- Major concept of social penetration theory – gradually revealing personal info – gains trust
- Reciprocity – partner responds the same way – balance of self-disclosure – successful relationship.
- Makes people feel more intimate and increases attraction.
- As self-disclosure increases – commitment increases.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure (AO3)
Research to support self-disclosure was conducted by Sprecher and Hendrick (2004). They studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure. Men and women who used self- disclosure and those who believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationships. Therefore, increasing the validity of self- disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
However, much of the research carried out into self-disclosure theory, such a Sprecher & Hendrick’s, is correlational so only a relationship is shown between self-disclosure and levels of attraction, not a cause and effect. There is likely to be a number of other factors impacting how successful the romantic relationship is e.g. physical attractiveness and similarity in attitudes. Therefore limiting the support and internal validity of the research into self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships as we cannot establish cause and effect.
Further lowering the internal validity of the research into self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships, is the fact that the research is often carried out using self reports which could lead to social desirability bias. Participants may lie about the amount of information they have disclosed to a partner and how satisfied they are in their relationship to make themselves appear in a better light. This therefore weakens the internal validity of research into self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical attractiveness
- Evolutionary theory – symmetrical faces – rated as more attractive – honest signal of genetic fitness (good genes)
- Baby faces in women – widely spread eyes and small nose – more attractive – trigger protective and caring instinct – valuable to females wanting to reproduce.
- Halo effect –idea that attractiveness links to kind personalities – research found people are consistently rated more kind, strong, sociable, and successful if they are deemed as physically attractive.
- Matching hypothesis – people at a young age realise that everybody can’t form relationships with the most attractive people – so match a partner with their own level of attractiveness.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical attractiveness (AO3)
Research to contradict the matching hypothesis comes from Taylor et al. (2011). They studied the activity logs of a popular dating site. This was a real-life test of the matching hypothesis because is measured actual date choices and not just preferences. Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. This contradicts the matching hypothesis as a physical attractiveness factor that affects attraction in romantic relationships as people did not consider their own level of attractiveness when making decisions, therefore lowering the validity of the theory.
Furthermore, research into physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships is often carried out using self reports (questionnaires and interviews) which could lead to social desirability bias. Participants may lie about how important physical attractiveness is in a potential partner for fear of seeming shallow. Therefore, this weakens the overall support of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
However, there are many similarities across cultures when studying physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships. Large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated attractive by Hispanic and Asian males as the features display genetic fitness (sexual selection). Furthermore, American and Korean students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, friendly and mature. This therefore means it is possible to generalise findings from western cultures to non-western cultures as they have displayed similarities when investigating physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter theory
- People use filters to narrow down potential partners.
- 1st Filter – Social demography – religion, ethnic group, level of education, geographical location
- 2nd Filter – Similarity in attitudes – needed in the early stages (less than 18 months) – agree on shared values (what they have in common)
- 3rd Filter – Complementarity – ability to meet each other’s needs – two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other person lacks – opposites attract.
Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter theory (AO3)
One strength of Kerckhoff and Davis’ study into filter theory is that it was a longitudinal study. Both partners in dating couples completed questionnaires to assess two factors; similarity in attituded and complementarity of needs 7 months apart. It was found that closeness in a relationship was associated with similarity of values but only for couples who had been together for less than 18 months. For couples in longer relationships complementarity of needs predicted closeness. This supports filter theory as a theory affecting attraction as it provides evidence that similarity is important in early stages of a relationship whereas complementarity is more important for later stages.
Moreover, the theory can be criticised for lacking temporal validity as this theory was created in 1962. Since then there has been a rise of online dating which has changed the process of the beginning a romantic relationship. Some would argue it has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables, such as geographical location. Applications such as Tinder and Match.com have made meeting potential partners easier than ever. Therefore, filter theory may not be as appropriate in modern society as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships.
One limitation of the idea of complementarity in filter theory as a factor affecting attraction is that it may not fully apply to long-term relationships. Filter theory suggests that satisfaction in long-term relationship is linked to complementarity of need for example one partner may be more dominant whereas the other more submissive. However, it has been found that lesbian couples who reported equal dominance in their long-term relationships (4 1⁄2 years) were most satisfied. Therefore lowering the validity of complementarity in filter theory as an explanation of factors affecting attraction as a similarity of needs may be better associated with long-term satisfaction.
Social Exchange Theory
- Economic theory - considers how parties exchange rewards and costs (e.g., money, time, and emotional distress)
- People act selfishly, aiming to MINIMISE COSTS and MAXIMISE REWARDS.
- If rewards outweigh the costs, there is PROFIT and SATISFACTION. Vice versa, there is loss, which leads to dissatisfaction.
- Comparison Levels (CL) –Develops from past relationships and social norms – expectations of relationships.
- Comparison Levels of Alternatives (CL Alt) – Compare current to potential – could there be better elsewhere?
comparisons= 16
Social Exchange Theory AO3
Research to support social exchange theory as a theory of romantic relationships was carried out by Kurdeck (1995). He asked gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and the rewards/costs of their relationship. He found that those partners who were most committed perceived more rewards and fewer costs and viewed alternative relationships as unattractive, so relationships were more successful when there was profit as the theory predicts. Therefore these findings increase the validity of the social exchange theory as a theory of romantic relationships as a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties are in profit will be maintained.
One limitation of SET as a theory of romantic relationships is the claim that dissatisfaction arises only after a relationship stops being profitable. SET suggests that we become dissatisfied when we decide that the costs of the relationship outweigh the rewards or alternatives are more attractive. It has been argued that we don’t monitor costs and rewards, or consider alternatives, until after we become dissatisfied. When satisfied we don’t consider the alternatives. Suggesting that considering costs and alternatives are caused by dissatisfaction rather than dissatisfaction causing us to consider alternatives, limiting the SET as an explanation for romantic relationships.
SET can also be criticised for lacking cultural relativism as the theory applies to individualistic cultures but not to collectivist cultures. Individualistic cultures are independent and strive for personal success and are selfish whereas relationships in collectivist cultures may not keep a track of the rewards/costs in the same way. Therefore SET would lack cultural relativism for non-western cultures as the norms and values of collectivist cultures are not taken into account when explaining satisfaction due to profit or loss in relationships. Therefore Social exchange theory can’t be used to explain romantic relationships across all cultures.
Equity Theory
- Based around the SET but it aims to explain how the SET would work in real life relationships.
- Equity Theory - based on fairness rather than equality.
- Looks at relationships in terms of ‘fairness’ and making a relationship more equitable - inequity = dissatisfaction.
- If this is equal, then it is a fair and the relationship will be maintained.
- Unfair, the ‘loser’ - made to feel dissatisfied and ‘Winner’ feels guilty = relationship will not be maintained
- Believe in the process of realignment – restoring equity is possible.
Equity Theory AO3
Research to support equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships was carried out by Utne et al (1984). They carried out a questionnaire of 118 recently-married couples who had been together for more than 2 years before marrying, measuring equity. They found that couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefitting or under benefitting. Supporting the importance of balance and fairness showing that equity theory is an important factor to predict satisfaction in romantic relationships.
One limitation of the equity of romantic relationships is that the research is mainly based on self-report methods as much of the research uses interviews and questionnaires that are prone to social desirability. This is a weakness because participants may lie about their relationships to present their relationships in the best possible light for example emphasising that there is equity in their relationship especially since the couples were recently married. Therefore, this reduces the internal validity of equity theory and suggests research into equity theory may not be a useful explanation of romantic relationships.
A limitation of the equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships is that it may not apply to all cultures. Couples from individualistic cultures (USA) considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was most equitable whereas couples from collectivist cultures (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were over benefitting. Limiting the equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships as it only applies to certain cultures.
Rusbult’s Investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.
Commitment is important and depends on three factors:
1. Satisfaction Level –- influenced by the degree to which a partner meets an individual’s needs (emotional and sexual needs).
2. Comparison with alternatives – Is there a potential new relationship that could meet the individuals need better than the current one?
3. Investment size – Refers to the amount and importance of the resources associated with a relationship. Resources would decline in value or be lost if the relationship was to end. There are two types of investment.
* Intrinsic investment – time and effort
* Extrinsic investment – shared friends, children, house etc.
High Satisfaction + Low Alternatives + High Investment = Relationship Maintained
1 and 2 = 16 only
Rusbult’s Investment model AO3
Research to support Rusbults investment model as a theory of romantic relationship was carried Le and Agnew (2003). They carried out a meta analysis on 52 studies which included 11,000 ppts from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted the longest. This was found true for both men and women, across all cultures and for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. Increasing the validity of Rusbults investment model as a theory of romantic relationship as the theory can apply universally to all relationships across cultures and types of couples.
However, most of the studies in Le and Agnews meta analysis was correlational. This proves to be problematic correlational research doesn’t allow us to establish cause and effect between commitment in relationship. It could be due to the fact that the more committed you feel towards your partner the more investment you are willing to make in the relationship. Therefore limiting the research that supports Rusbult’s investment model as a theory of romantic relationship.
A further limitation of Rusbults investment model as a theory of romantic relationships is that it oversimplifies investment. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) point out that there is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. At the start of a relationship, you may have very few investment, they both added to Rusbults model by including the investment partners make in their future plans for example planning to buy a house together. The couple will make the relationship work out because they want to see these future plans work out and see the investment. This limits Rusbults original investment model as a theory of romantic relationships as it fails to recognise the complexity of investment in the early stages of relationships.
