Relationships Flashcards
Explain the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Anisogamy
- the difference between male and female sex cells
- male - small and many and require little energy to make a child
- female - large and limited and require a lot of energy to make a child
- fertile females are therefore a rarer resource
Inter-sexual selection
- between the sexes
- females are choosy about who they have sex with because they have a greater investment of time, commitment, and other resources
- therefore, females mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide resources
- certain features of men are therefore selected, such as being tall, and this trait therefore increases over successive generations
- the sexy son hypothesis says that if you mate with a male with certain characteristics, the son will inherit these characteristics and they are then more likely to be selected by successive generations
intra-sexual selection
- within each sex
- the preferred way of the male, quantity over quality
- its advantageous for men to be bigger, less hairy, have money
- is advantageous for women to look young, shiny hair, large waist:hip ratio, as this indicates they are fertile
Evaluation of the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Strengths
research support for intra-sexual selection
- Buss carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries where he asked questions about partner preference
- he found that females placed greater value on resource related characteristics than males did, such as good financial prospects and ambition
- males valued physical attractiveness and youth more than females did
- this reflects consistent sex differences in partner preferences and supports the predictions from sexual selection theory
research support for inter-sexual selection
- Clark and Hatfield sent male and female psychology students out across a university campus. They approached other students individually with this question, “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?
- 0% of females agreed compared to 75% of males who did
- this supports that females are more choosy when it comes to selecting sexual partners and that males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success
- however, the idea that there is one strategy for each gender is very simplistic
- strategies may differ depending on the length of relationship, for example, when selecting a long term partner, both sexes may look for partners who are loving, loyal, and kind
- this may be a more complete explanation
limitations
social and cultural influences underestimated
- rapidly changing social norms of behavior have influenced partner preferences, such as the availability of contraception allows women to have more short term relationships, ie, one night stands
- women also have a greater role in the workplace and aren’t dependent on men to provide for them
- Bereczkei argued that social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences, which may no longer be resource orientated
sexual selection and homosexuality
- sexual selection theory does not explain homosexual relationships, as the people aren’t assessing the other for genetic fitness
- Lawson looked at the preferences of gay men and lesbian women and found that the preferences differ in homosexual as they do in heterosexual, with men looking for physical attractiveness and women looking for resources
what are the three factors affecting attraction
self disclosure
physical attractiveness
filter theory
describe self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction
social penetration theory
- the gradual process of revealing your inner self and deepest thoughts and feelings to someone else
- a reciprocal exchange which builds trust between two people so that they feel they are able to reveal sensitive information
breadth and depth of self-disclosure
- as these increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other
- at first we reveal low risk information, ie, occuption, age, favorite color and breadth is narrow as many topics are off limits
- as the relationship progresses, breadth and depth increase and we are able to share more personal information, ie, past trauma and fears
- if we reveal too much information or information that is too deep, the relationship could be threatened before its even really started
- depenetration occurs when dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship
reciprocity of self-disclosure
- self disclosure must be reciprocated so that there is a balance of information being shared
- this increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship, increasing our attraction to the other person
who created the concept of social penetration theory
Altman and Taylor
Evaluation of self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction
Strengths
Real world application
- Haas and Stafford found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships
- if less skilled partners learn to use self-disclosure in their relationship, it can deepen satisfaction and commitment, showing that self-disclosure can be valuable in helping people who are having problems in their relationship
Research support
- Sprecher and Hendrick studied heterosexual dating and found a positive correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners
- men and women who used self disclosure in their relationship were more satisfied and committed to their relationship
- Sprecher also found that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self disclose
- this research increases the validity of the theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
- however, this research is correlational, and correlation doesn’t mean causation
- it could be that the more satisfied a relationship is, the more they self-disclose, or that its the amount of time that the couple spends together that increases satisfaction instead of self-disclosure
Limitation
Cultural differences
- Tang reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure and found that people in the US self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in china
- despite the lower levels of self-disclosure, the levels of satisfaction were no different
- therefore self-disclosure is a limited explanation as the theory is based on research from individualist cultures which means its not generalizable to other cultures
Describe physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
explaining the importance of physical attractiveness
- people with symetircal faces are rated as more attractive because it is an honest signal of genetic fitness
- baby-face features are also attractive, as they trigger a protective or caring instinct
the halo effect
- physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to unattractive people
- a self fulfilling prophecy, as the idea that good looking people have these traits makes them more attractive to us, and so we behave positively to them
- the halo effect describes how physical attractiveness has a disproportionate influence on our judgements of other peoples attributes
the matching hypothesis
- we try and find a partner that is a similar level of attractiveness to ourselves instead of choosing the most attractive person to limit our chances of rejection
describe research into the matching hypothesis
Walster, the computer dance
- students were invited to a dance and rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start
- they were also given a questionnaire about themselves to fill out, which was said to be how they were going to get partnered, however the partnering was completely random
- they found that the most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account, disproving the matching hypothesis
- however, Berscheid replicated the study where each person was able to choose their own partner from varying degrees of attractiveness
- they found that participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
- therefore, we tend to seek partners who match our level of physical attractiveness, as the choice is a compromise between rejection and trying to find the most attractive person
Evaluation of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction
Strengths
Research support for the halo effect
- Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people, even when participants knew that these “knowledgeable” people had no particular expertise
- this therefore has implications in politics, as an attractive person could gain more voters than an unattractive person
Evolutionary explanation
- Cunningham found that women who had features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic, and Asian men
- therefore the standards of what is attractive is the same across different societies and this therefore makes sense at an evolutionary level
Limitation
Research challenging the matching hypothesis
- Taylor studied the activity logs of a popular dating site and found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
- this undermines the validity of the theory of the matching hypothesis, as it contradicts the central idea
- however, choosing someone to date versus choosing someone for a romantic relationship may be different
- Feingold carried out a meta analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings between romantic partners
- dating selection on dating sites may also be a “fantasy” much as it is in laboratory research
- there is therefore scientific support for the matching hypothesis from real world established romantic partners
Describe filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
- we have a pool of potential partners, but not everyone who is available to us is desirable
Social demography (1st level of filter) - geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion
- we are more likely to meet someone who is physically close to us and shares many demographics, as it doesn’t take much effort to meet these people
- homogamy
- this filter significantly reduces our potential partners
Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter) - partners share important beliefs and values, such as what type of music they like to listen to
- this stage is important for the first 18 months of a relationship, as it promotes deeper communication and self-disclosure
- if the beliefs do not match, the relationship will fizzle out
Complementarity of needs (3rd level of filter) - two partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks
- this is important in long term couples as it gives the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish
who developed the filter theory?
Kerckoff and Davis
Evaluation of filter theory as a factor affecting attraction
Strength
Research support
- researchers conducted a longitudinal study where both partners completed a questionnaire to assess similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs
- closeness was then measure through a questionnaire seven months later
- they found that closeness was associated with similarity of attitudes only for couples who had been together less than 18 months, and for those in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness
- however, Levinger pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate these findings
- this might have been due to social change and to problems determining the depth of a relationship in terms of length
- they assumed that the partners who had been together longer were more committed and in a deeper relationship, which is a questionable assumption and means that filter theory is undermined by the lack of validity of its evidence base
Limitations
Problems with complementarity
- may not be central to all long term relationships
- Markey and Markey found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied and the sample of couples had been together for a mean of more than 4.5 years
- therefore similarity of needs might be more important than complementarity of needs in some long term relationships
actual versus perceived similarity
- a meta analysis of 313 studies by Montoya found that actual similarity affected attraction only in very short term lab based interactions. In real world relationships, perceived similarity was more important than actual
- partners may perceive grater similarities as they become more attracted to one another
- therefore perceived attraction may be an effect of attraction and not a cause
Describe social exchange theory as a theory of romantic relationships
Rewards, costs, and profits
- we try to minimize losses and maximize gains
- because costs and rewards are subjective, they are applicable to everyone, such as words of affirmation may be highly appreciated by one person, but to another mean nothing
- furthermore, these can change over the course of a relationship
- rewards include sex and emotional support
- costs include time, stress, and energy
- we continue being in a relationship if the rewards outweigh the costs, ie, if the relationship is profitable
Comparison level
- the amount of reward we think we deserve to get
- based on previous relationships and social norms, such as movies and tv shows
- our comparison level changes as we acquire more data
- if our CL is high, we pursue relationships that require a lot of profit
Comparison level for alternatives
- could we receive more profits and less costs from another relationship or from being on our own
- we only stay in a relationship if the alternatives are not better
stages of relationship development
- sampling stage
- bargaining stage
- commitment stage
- institutionalization stage
who developed the social exchange theory?
Thibualt and Kelley
Evaluation of social exchange theory as a theory of romantic relationships
Strengths
research support
- Kurdek asked gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables
- they found that those partners who were most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive. This demonstrated that SET concepts predicts commitment independently
- this confirms the validity of the theory in both straight and gay couples
- however, ignores equity, as its not only the balance that matters, but the perception that it is equal
- a limited explanation as it can’t account for this factor in much of its research
Limitations
Direction of cause and effect
- we are supposed to measure the costs and rewards and then decide if we are dissatisfied, however, Argyle argues that we become dissatisfied and then monitor costs and rewards as well as considering alternatives
- this suggests that the SET may be reversed to what happens in real life
Vague concepts
- rewards and costs vary a lot from one person to another
- the concept of comparison levels is also very difficult to determine what the values of this must be before it threatens a relationship
- therefore the theory is difficult to test in a valid way
