Relationships

Question 1

What is sexual selection?

Answer 1

An evolutionary explanation of partner preference, proposed by Darwin (1871). Attributes which increase reproductive success are passed on, and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
Some physical characteristics, such as a male peacocks tail, are a sign of genetic fitness
Other characteristics, such as aggressiveness, are adaptive. They provide an advantage for male animals over their competitors.

Question 2

What is Anisogamy?

Answer 2

The differences between male and female sex cells (gametes).
Male gametes (sperm) - small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age, do not need much energy to be produced
Female gametes (eggs/ova) - relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years, and require a significant amount of energy
A consequence of anisogamy is that there is no shortage of fertile males, but a fertile female is a much rarer ‘recourse’. Anisogamy is important for partner preference as it leads to the two types of sexual selection

Question 3

What are the two types of sexual selection?

Answer 3

. Inter-sexual selection - To do with characteristics that improve desirability - Females are choosier and look for recourses
. Intra-sexual selection - To do with characteristics that aid success in competition - Males compete to mate with as many females as possible

Question 4

What is Inter-sexual selection?

Answer 4

. Tends to be the preferred strategy of females when choosing a partner
. Trivers (1972) - pointed out that a female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other recourses before, during and after the birth of her offspring
. Both sexes are choosy, as both stand to lose if they invest in substandard partners, but the consequences of choosing the wrong partner are worse for females
. Females must be more selective, choosing a genetically fit partner with the best recourses
. It is female preference which determines what traits will be passed on in offspring - eg. if a female favours height, this will increase in the male population over time - as females will select the tallest male, so the characteristic gradually becomes exaggerated (a runway process)
. Fisher (1930) - sexy sons hypothesis - the genes we see today are those which have enhanced reproductive success. Females mate with males with particular, desirable characteristics. It is then more likely that her son will inherit this ‘sexy trait’. This then means that her son is more likely to be selected by females who will mate with her offspring. Therefore the preference for this ‘sexy trait’ is perpetuated

Question 5

What is Fisher’s ‘sexy sons’ hypothesis?

Answer 5

. Fisher (1930) - sexy sons hypothesis - the genes we see today are those which have enhanced reproductive success. Females mate with males who have particular, desirable characteristics. It is then more likely that her son will inherit this ‘sexy trait’. This then means that her son is more likely to be selected by females who will mate with her offspring. Therefore the preference for this ‘sexy trait’ is perpetuated

Question 6

What is Intra-sexual selection?

Answer 6

. Focuses on strategies and characteristics that aid reproduction within a sex
. It is the preferred strategy of males, who are said to prefer quantity over quality - they are more concerned with beating out other males to get a female and reproduce than selecting the most desirable female
. There is competition between males to be selected to mate with a female. The winner of this competition reproduces, so the characteristics which have contributed to this win may be passed onto his offspring. Losers do not pass on ‘loosing characteristics’ as they do not reproduce to do so.
. Intra-sexual selection can affect the physical characteristics of a population (dimorphism) and behavioural characteristics

Question 7

What is Dimorphism (physical consequences of Intra-sexual selection)?

Answer 7

The idea that males and females end up looking physically different because of intra-sexual selection. In any physical competition between males, size tends to matter - larger males have the advantage, and so are more likely to reproduce.
On the other hand, females don’t have to compete for reproductive rights, so there is no evolutionary drive towards favouring younger, more fertile women. Youthfulness may be desirable to males because they are seen as more fertile, but this is not a physical, evolutionary change

Question 8

What are the behavioural consequences of Intra-sexual selection?

Answer 8

Characteristics that allow a male to outcompete his rivals are those that are passed on. These can include deceitfulness, intelligence and aggression. Eg. males may benefit from acting aggressively in order to acquire fertile females and protect them from competing mates, leading to aggressiveness in males.

Question 9

What are some strengths of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?

Answer 9

+ Research support for inter-sexual selection, in particular the concept of female ‘choosiness’ - Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted research on university students. Male and female psychology students approached other students and said: ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’. No female students agreed to the request, while 75% of male students did. This supports the view that females are choosier than males in choosing sexual partners, and that males have developed a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
—- COUNTER —- The argument that males and females have adopted different methods of sexual selection is arguably too simplistic. Buss and Schmidt (2016) proposed the ‘sexual strategies theory’ which argues that both males and females adopt similar strategies in seeking long-term partners, in which both are choosy and look for qualities such as kindness, loyalty ect. They suggest that strategies differ according to the desired length of relationship. As such, Clark and Hatfield’s study can only be used to support arguments about sexual selection when discussing it in the very short term, and as such is limited, lacking nuance.
+ Research support for intra-sexual selection - Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries, asking them questions related to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference. Females were found to place greater value on recourse related characteristics eg. ambition, good finances, while males placed greater value on physical attractiveness and youth. These findings are consistent with predictions from sexual selection theory, strengthening its reliability.

Question 10

What are some limitations of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences?

Answer 10

• Evolutionary theories often underestimate the influence of social and cultural factors over partner preference - rapidly changing social norms in the last century will naturally have an impact on partner preference. These norms have developed much faster than evolutionary timescales would imply, due to changing cultural factors such as attitudes towards reproduction, women’s role in the workplace, homosexuality etc.. Bereczkei et.al (1997) argued that women’s greater role in the workplace (and in turn them becoming less dependent on men) has consequences for their mate preference, which may no longer be resource orientated. Partner preference today is likely to be a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. The evolutionary explanation arguably lacks temporal validity and is outdated, limiting its value as an explanation.

Question 11

What factors affect attraction?

Answer 11

. Self-disclosure
. Physical attractiveness
. Filter theory

Question 12

What is self-disclosure?

Answer 12

Revealing personal information about yourself to a partner, such as your feelings, attitudes, beliefs, memories etc.. This allows partners to understand each other better, strengthening romantic bonds. Partners tend to be cautious about what they disclose initially, but may reveal more over time.

Question 13

What is social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor)?

Answer 13

. Proposed by Altman and Taylor in 1973
. It is a theory of how relationships develop
. It describes the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, including your deepest thoughts and feelings
. In romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of information between partners. By revealing information, partners indicate trust.
. As partners disclose more and more, they penetrate more deeply into each others lives and gain a greater understanding of each other
. Disclosure signals that the relationship has reached a level where self-disclosure will hopefully be welcomed and reciprocated

Question 14

What did Altman and Taylor say were the two basic elements of self-disclosure?

Answer 14

Breadth and Depth
As both of these increase, partners become more committed to each other

Question 15

What is meant by Breadth and Depth of self-disclosure?

Answer 15

Altman and Taylor used the metaphor of an onion to describe self-disclosure.
We describe a lot about ourselves at the start of a relationship, but what is revealed tends to be surface level and superficial. Breadth of disclosure is narrow, as there is a narrow range topics considered acceptable.
As the relationship develops, self disclosure becomes deeper, with progressively more and more ‘layers’ removed to reveal our true selves. A wider breadth of topics are discussed. Eventually, we reveal deeper, intimate, high-risk information eg. painful memories, strongly held beliefs, secrets

Question 16

What is depenetration?

Answer 16

Altman and Taylor suggested that dissatisfied partners will self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship (depenetration)

Question 17

What is meant by reciprocity of self disclosure?

Answer 17

The idea that in order for a relationship to develop there must be a reciprocal element to self disclosure, as well as breadth and depth. When a partner discloses something meaningful, there is the hope that their partner will respond in a rewarding way - with empathy and their own intimate thoughts and feelings.
A balance of self disclosure strengthens feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship

Question 18

Who proposed reciprocity of self disclosure?

Answer 18

Reis and Shaver (1988)

Question 19

What are some strengths of self disclosure?

Answer 19

+ Research support - Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between levels of satisfaction and self-disclosure. Men and women who used self-disclosure, and believed their partners did, were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship. Sprecher et.al (2013) also found that relationships were closer when partners took turns to self-disclose (reciprocity). These findings support the validity of the theory.
—- COUNTER —- Much of the research into self-disclosure, including Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) is correlational. It reveals a link between self-disclosure and satisfaction, but does not reveal whether self-disclosure is the cause of this. It could be the case that when partners feel more happy and satisfied in a relationship, they reveal more about themselves, rather than satisfaction coming from self-disclosure. A cause-effect link cannot be established, reducing the validity of social penetration theory
+ Real world application - Self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. Haas and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationship, showing its value. Less skilled partners could learn to use self-disclosure, helping to increase intimacy, satisfaction and commitment within their relationships. This shows psychological insights, such as social penetration theory, to have practical benefits.

Question 20

What are some limitations of self disclosure?

Answer 20

• Cultural differences - The idea that increasing depth and breadth leads to a more satisfying and intimate romantic relationship is not true for all cultures. Tang et.al (2013) reviewed research into self-disclosure, and concluded that while in the US (an individualistic culture) partners self-disclosed more intimate thoughts and feelings eg. about sexual practices, this was not the case for China, a more collectivistic culture. Despite differing levels of self-disclosure, levels of satisfaction were no different in China and the US. Therefore self-disclosure is a limited explanation of romantic relationships, as is based on findings from individualist cultures, so lacks generalisability.

Question 21

What is physical attractiveness?

Answer 21

. A term which tends to describe how appealing we find someone’s face. Shackelford and Larsen (1997) found that people with symmetrical faces rated as more attractive. It has been suggested that this is because it is seen as an honest signal of genetic fitness (it is hard to fake facial symmetry) - this links to sexual selection and evolutionary theories
. People are also attracted to neotenous (baby faced) features - such as widely separated eyes, large eyes, delicate chin, small nose - because these are seen to trigger protective or caring instincts
. There is a general agreement across cultures about what is considered physically attractive
. There is also an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available

Question 22

What is the halo effect?

Answer 22

. How one distinguishing feature - physical attractiveness - has a disproportionate influence on our judgements of the persons other attributes, such as their personality

. Dion et.al (1972) - what is beautiful is good
. It has also been suggested that physical attractiveness matters because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits of attractive people, which are almost universally positive
. The halo effect describes situations where attractive people are assumed to possess positive, desirable characteristics eg. Dion et.al also found that physically attractive people were consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful, compared to unattractive people
. The belief that attractive people have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them (a form of self-fulfilling prophecy)

Question 23

Who proposed the matching hypothesis?

Answer 23

Walster and Walster (1969)?

Question 24

What does the matching hypothesis suggest?

Answer 24

That we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (as well as personality, intelligence) rather than choosing the most appealing people. We risk rejection in selecting the most attractive people, so opt for partners ‘in our league’

Question 25

What was the ‘Computer dance’ (Walster et.al 1966)

Answer 25

Male and Female students were invited to a dance. They were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start of the dance. They also completed a questionnaire about themselves, which included data such as personality, self esteem. They were told that this information would be used by a computer to randomly assign them a partner. They were actually paired up randomly

Question 26

What were the findings of the computer dance?

Answer 26

The hypothesis was not supported. The most liked partners were the most physically attractive, rather than individuals taking their own physical attractiveness into account.

Question 27

What did Berscheid et.al (1971) find?

Answer 27

Berscheid replicated the study, but this time allowed participants to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness. This time, participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.

Question 28

What are some strengths of the role of physical attractiveness?

Answer 28

+ Research support for the halo effect - Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This persisted even when participants knew these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise. The study strengthens the reliability of the concept of the halo effect. It also shows it to have real world implications, particularly in terms of politics, as it suggests there may be dangers for democracy - politicians could be judged as fit for office simply because they are attractive to voters. This shows the theory to have practical value
+ Research support for the role of evolution in physical attractiveness - Cunningham et.al (1995) found that women with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high cheekbones were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men. The researchers concluded that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures. This could have an evolutionary explanation, in that attractive features are seen as a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures. This shows physical attractiveness and research into it to have importance on evolutionary, scientific level.

Question 29

What are some limitations of the role of physical attractiveness?

Answer 29

• The matching hypothesis is not supported by real-world research into dating - Taylor et.al (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site, and found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. This challenges the matching hypothesis, as it suggests that in real-world dating situations, partners do not select partners based on their own attractiveness. This undermines the (external) validity of the matching hypothesis, contradicting its central concept, and suggesting that it doesn’t apply to real world relationships. It is also arguably a more valuable study than the original ‘computer dance’ as it assesses actual date choices, rather than just preference.
  —- COUNTER —- however this does not necessarily disprove the hypothesis. Individuals may express interest into partners who are more physically attractive than them, but this does not mean they successfully ‘get’ and date them. The study only reveals information about partner preference, rather than information about relationship dynamics, so arguably is not superior to the original study in this aspect.
  -

Question 30

Who proposed Filter theory?

Answer 30

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)

Question 31

What is Filter theory?

Answer 31

An explanation of relationship formation proposed by Kerckhoff and Davis (1962). It states that different factors progressively reduce the range of romantic partners available to us, filtering people out to leave a smaller field of desirables. The importance of each factor varies depending on the stage of the relationship

Question 32

What are the 3 levels of filters?

Answer 32

. 1st level - Social demography
. 2nd level - Similarity in attitudes
. 3rd level - Complementarity

Question 33

What is meant by ‘Social demography’?

Answer 33

Refers to a wide range of factors which influence the likelihood of potential partners even meeting. These include proximity, social class, level of education, ethnicity, religion etc.
You are more likely to meet people who live close to you and who share several demographic characteristics. Our most meaningful and memorable interactions tend to be with people who are nearby.
They key benefit or proximity is accessibility, as it requires less effort to meet people who live nearby.
There is a vast range of potential partners, but the realistic field is narrower as our choices are constrained by our social circumstances. Anyone who is too ‘different’ (too far away, too middle class) is discounted as a potential partner.
The outcome of this filtering is homogamy - where you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar.

Question 34

What is meant by ‘Similarity in attitudes’?

Answer 34

Due to the field of potential partners being narrowed down by the first filter, partners will often share important beliefs and values. They have significant social and cultural characteristics in common.
Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, but only in couples who had been together less than 18 months.
In the early stages of a relationship, there is a need for partners to agree over basic values and things that really matter to them, as it encourages deeper communication and promotes self-disclosure.
There is evidence that most of us find this similarity attractive. Byrne (1997) has described the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the law of attraction. If partners have little in common, the relationship is likely to fade.

Question 35

What is meant by ‘complementarity’?

Answer 35

Concerns the ability of partners to meet each others needs. Two partners compliment each other when they have traits that the other lacks.
Kerckhoff and Davis found that the need for complementarity was more important for long-term couples. At later stages of a relationship, opposites attract.
Complementarity is attractive as it gives partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish.

Question 36

What are some strengths of Filter theory?

Answer 36

+ Research support - Kerckhoff and Davis conducted a longitudinal study in which both partners in couples completed questionnaires to assess their similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Relationship closeness was then measured by another questionnaire 7 months later. The study found that closeness was associated with similarity of values, but only in couples who had been together less than 18 months. For couples in longer term relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness.
—- COUNTER —- Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate these findings, which he attributed to social changes over time, such as changing dating patterns, and problems with the definition of relationship length, which is arguably quite subjective. By choosing an 18 month cut off, Kerckhoff and Davis assumed that partners who had been together longer than this were more committed and had a deeper relationship. This is a questionable assumption, undermines the research and theories’ validity.

Question 37

What are some limitations of Filter theory?

Answer 37

• Limited generalisability due to problems with complementarity - Complementarity may not be central to all long term relationships, despite the theories’ assumption that the most satisfying relationships are complementarity, with one partner being more dominant or skilled in one area, and the other more submissive and less skilled. However Markey and Markey (2013) found that in lesbian couples, those where partners were equally dominant were the most satisfied. All members of their sample were in ‘long-term relationships’ (a mean of over 4.5 years). This suggests that for some couples, similarity of needs is always a more important filter than complementarity.
• There is a distinction between actual similarity and perceived similarity, which the theory doesn’t acknowledge - Research suggests that actual similarity is less important than whether partners see themselves as similar. Montoya et.al (2008) conducted a meta-analysis involving 313 studies and found that actual similarity only affected attraction in very short term, lab based interactions. In real-world relationships, perceived similarity was a stronger indicator of attraction. One explanation for this could be that as partners become increasingly attracted to eachother, they perceive more similarities. Therefore similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause, which contradicts filter theory.
• Problems with temporal validity - Filter theory claims that demographic factors reduce the field of available partners to a small pool of partners who are similar to ourselves. However, access to partners has changed over time, especially with the introduction of social media and dating apps. Location arguably no longer limits partner choice, with physical appearance becoming a more important factor in selecting potential partners. Also, social change has led to a rise in relationships that would have been less common in the 1960’s as the theory was being developed, such as relationships between partners from different ethnic backgrounds. This suggests the theory may be limited as it is outdated.