Relationships Flashcards
What is Darwin’s theory of sexual selection?
Humans attracted to people that aid successful reproduction
Evolution favours development of attractive features
These features make it more likely someone will attract a mate -> reproduce -> pass on genes
What is the definition of anisogamy?
The differences between male and female gametes
How are sperm cells and egg cells different? (anisogamy)
Small vs Large
Mobile vs Static
Created constantly vs produced in intervals for limited fertile years
Little energy vs significant energy investment
What is the consequence of anisogamy?
No shortage in fertile males but fertile females are rarer
Means making a wrong partner choice more serious for females due to greater investment -> choosy
What does anisogamy give rise to?
2 types of sexual selection…
Inter-sexual (females)
Intra-sexual (males)
Why is inter-sexual selection the preferred strategy for females?
Quality > quantity as ova rarer than sperm
Thus, consequences of female making wrong choice more serious, so makes sense to be more selective
Optimum to select genetically fit partner to provide resources
Female preference determines features passed on to offspring
What is the ‘Sexy sons’ hypothesis (Fisher)?
When females mate with male with certain trait, sons inherit this ‘sexy’ trait
Sons more likely to be selected, preference for ‘sexy’ trait is maintained + exaggerated (runaway process)
Why is intra-sexual selection the preferred strategy for males? What does this entail?
Quantity > quality) as low investment cost
Competition between males to be selected as a mate: winner reproduces and passes on characteristics
What does intra-sexual selection give rise to?
Male-female dimorphism… males and females end up looking very different
Give examples of male-female dimorphism
Physical size b/w males matters -> larger males more likely to reproduce successfully, but not evolutionary advantage for females (not as big)
Youthfulness + waist/hip ratio preferred for female -> more likely to be selected
Who did research into waist-hip ratio?
Singh
- Males find any hip and waist size attractive, as long as ratio is 1:0.7
- Wide hips signal fertility BUT slimmer waste shows not already pregnant
- Prevents cuckoldry
What are the behavioural consequences of intra-sexual selection for males?
Deceitfulness, aggression (mate-retention strategies) -> selection of aggressiveness
What are 2 strengths of the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
Research support for inter-sexual selection (female choosiness)
- Clark + Hatfield
- sent male/female students to approach other students (of opposite sex)
- told them they found attractive and asked, ‘would you go to bed with me tonight?’
- no females agreed but 75% of males did immediately
Supports view that females are choosier when selecting sexual partner across cultures
Research support for predicting intra-sexual selection
- Buss
- survey > 10,000 adults, 33 countries
- questions about attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference (but self-report)
- females valued resource related characteristics (eg: ambition)
- males valued attractiveness & youth (as have good reproductive capacity)
Reflects consistent sex differences in partner preference, supports prediction from sexual selection theory, cross cultural so evolutionary valid
What are 2 weaknesses of the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?
Sexual selection theory too simplistic that one strategy is adaptive for all males and other is adaptive for all females
- strategies differ according to length of relationship
- sexual strategies theory argues that males & females adopt similar mating strategy (choosy) when seeking LT relationships
This is a more complex + nuanced view of how evolutionary pressures influence partner preference, considers context of reproductive behaviour
Cannot explain partner preferences of gay/lesbian
- homosexual partners not assessing genetic fitness (though they may assess other qualities relevant to caring for offspring)
- because they can’t reproduce together
Evolutionary theory limited in explaining partner preferences amongst homosexuals
BUT
- Lawson et al looked at personal ads and found the preferences of homo/heterosexual men or women same as theory
What are the 3 factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships?
Self-disclosure
Physical attractiveness
Filter theory
What is self-disclosure?
Revealing personal information about yourself
Reveal more as relationship develops, can strengthen romantic bond
Who developed the social penetration theory?
Altman + Taylor
What is the social penetration theory?
Gradual process of revealing inner self to other: displays trust
Reciprocal exchange of information between partners
As more is disclosed, partners ‘penetrate’ deeper into each other’s lives
Eventually relationship reaches certain level where self-disclosure welcome
What is depenetration?
Dissatisfied partners self-disclose less to disengage from relationship
What are the 2 elements of self-disclosure?
Breadth and depth
Talk about self-disclosure at the start of a relationship
Reveal a lot (breadth)
But just superficial layer, range of topics limited (little depth)
Talk about self-disclosure as a relationship develops
Becomes deeper to reveal true self, removal of layers
What is a key principle to develop in both breadth and depth of self-disclosure?
Reciprocity
What did Reis and Shaver say about how reciprocity works in a relationship?
When self-disclosing, you want your partner to respond with understanding and empathy + share their own thoughts and feelings
Leads to a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in successful romantic relationship -> increases intimacy + deepens the relationship
What are 2 strengths of self-disclosure as a factor explaining attraction?
Research for self-disclosure for social penetration theory
- Sprecher + Hendrick heterosexual couples
- strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction + commitment and reciprocal self-disclosure
Increases validity of theory that reciprocated disclosure affects attraction positively
RW application to improve communication in relationships
- self-disclosure used deliberately to increase intimacy + strengthen bond
- less skilled partners can learn to use self-disclosure to bring several benefits to their relationships to ↑ satisfaction and commitment
- Haas + Stafford: 57% homosexual men and women claimed open + honest self-disclosure main way maintained + deepened relationships
Valuable in helping people with relationship difficulties
What are 2 weaknesses of self-disclosure as a factor explaining attraction?
But research is correlational
- assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction (causal) but a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw
- alternatively, more satisfied partners self-disclose more
- maybe self-disclosure/satisfaction independent, both caused by third variable, eg: time the partners spend together
Not a causal relationship, reduces validity
Cultural difference that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures leads to a more satisfaction/intimacy
- Tang et al reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure
- men + women in US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts/feelings than in China (collectivist)
- yet, in China, levels of satisfaction high.
Limited explanation of relationships, not generalisable, low population validity
What is the definition of physical attractiveness?
How appealing we find a face
Who did research into the importance of symmetrical faces in affecting physical attraction?
Shackelford + Larson
More attractive from an evolutionary perspective as an honest indication of genetic fitness (hard to fake)
Deviation due to difficulties from development eg: malnutrition, marker of poor health
How do neotenous faces affect physical attraction?
Baby-face features eg: large eyes, small nose trigger protective + caring instinct
Who explained how the halo effect affects physical attraction?
Dion et al
Physically attractive people consistently rated as kind + strong + sociable + successful, more than unattractive
The belief that good-looking people have these characteristics makes them seem more attractive -> others behave more positively towards them: self-fulfilling prophecy
Who coined the matching hypothesis? What is it?
Walster and Walster
We look for partners similar to us in terms of physical attractiveness instead of the most appealing people- a compromise to reduce risk of rejection
What was research exploring the matching hypothesis?
Walster et al explored the theory but hypothesis not supported
- uni students took part in a ‘computer dance’ they were randomly matched up with partners
- overall, people preferred partners rated as attractive, regardless of their own levels of attractiveness
BUT
Replication by Berscheid et al where participants could select their partner
Here, participants chose partners who did match them in physical attractiveness
What are 2 strengths of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Research that physical attractiveness results in halo effect
- Palmer + Peterson found physically attractive people rated more politically knowledgeable/competent than unattractive people
- such a powerful effect it persisted even when participants knew the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
Has implications for the political process as suggests dangers for democracy if politicians judged by physical attractiveness for voters
Research for evolutionary explanation
- Cunningham et al found women with features (large eyes, small nose) and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by White + Hispanic + Asian men
- what is considered physically attractive is cross-cultural
- symmetry as a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures
Importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at evolutionary level
What are 2 weaknesses of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Matching hypothesis not supported by real world research into dating
- Taylor et al studied activity logs of a popular online dating site
- measured the actual date choices, not merely preferences (in line with hypothesis)
- online daters sought meetings with potential partners more physically attractive than them
Undermines validity of matching hypothesis as contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness
Individual differences, some don’t place high value on attractiveness when selecting a partner
- people with non-sexist attitudes were uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners
- other factors more important
Physical attractiveness limited in partner preferences, moderated by individual differences/other factors
How did Kerckhoff and Davis’ research into the filter theory?
Compared attitudes of couples in ST relationship (< 18 months) and LT relationships
What does the filter theory suggest?
In terms of partner choice, we have a ‘field of availables’
3 factors act as filters at various stages of relationship to narrow down choices to ‘field of desirables ’
What are the 3 filters in the filter theory?
Social demography
Similarity in attitudes
Complementarity
What is the social demography filter?
Variables which influence chance of meeting in first place eg: age, social class, proximity (+ accessibility), ethnicity
Doesn’t require much effort to meet these people
Range of people we encounter restricted by social circumstances
What the result of the social demography filter?
Homogamy: more likely to choose a partner with someone socially/culturally similar
What is the similarity in attitudes filter?
Need for partners in earlier stages of relationship to agree over basic attitudes + values -> increases stability of relationship by increasing deeper communication
What does the law of attraction suggest?
Similarity results in attraction
What is complementarity?
Similarity less important as relationship develops, replaced by need to balance traits with opposite of your own- ‘opposites attract’ -> provides mutual satisfaction and feeling they form a ‘whole’ together
What is a strength of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Research support from Kerckhoff and Davis’ original study
- longitudinal study, both partners in couples completed questionnaires to assess: 1. similarity of attitude’s/values and 2. complementarity of needs
- relationship ‘closeness’ measured by another questionnaire 7 months later
- closeness predicted by similarity of values for ST couples
- closeness predicted by complementarity of needs for LT couples
Show diff “levels” of filter theory become ↑ important as relationship progresses
What are 3 weaknesses of the filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Studies fail to replicate findings
- Levinger
- no correlation between length of relationship and similarity of attitudes & values / complementarity of needs
- original study assumed that partners who had been together longer were more committed + deeper into r/ship
- theory based on assumptions
Theory undermined as lacks validity
Actual similarity matters less in a relationship than perceived similarity
- Montoya et al meta-analysis
- actual similarity affected attraction only in very ST, lab-based interactions
- in real-world relationships, perceived similarity stronger predictor of attraction
- due to partners perceiving greater similarity as become more attracted
Perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause- this not predicted by filter theory
Role of filters has changed over time
- social demography filter claims that demographic factors (including location) reduce field of availables to fewer people similar to us (homogamy)
- online dating apps have increased the field of availables: location no longer limits partner choice (maybe physical attraction now more important)
- also, social change -> new relationships between different ethnicities
Theory hasn’t adapted to account for social change, lacks temporal validity
What are the 3 theories of romantic relationships?
Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbult’s investment model
Who founded the social exchange theory?
Thibaut and Kelley
What is the formula for the social exchange theory?
The rewards of relationship – costs of relationship = outcome (profit/loss)
