relationships Flashcards
darwin
sexual selection
concerns the selection of characteristics that aid successful reproduction (rather than survival)
-for example, male peacocks tail as a sign of genetic fitness
females who select males with such characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring and therefore preference for tail is perpetuated in future generations
-other characteristics such as aggressiveness are adaptive as they provide an advantage for male over competitors for reproductive rights
Trivers
evolutionary
inter-sexual selection (preferred for female- quality over quantity)
-pointed out that the female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other recesses before, during and after birth of her offspring
Both sexes are choosey, because both stand to lose if they invest recourses in substandard partners
however, the consequences of choosing a wrong partner are more serious for the female - therefore the females optimum mating state is to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide recourses
Fisher
sexy sons hypothesis
the teens we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success
a female who mates with a male who has a certain characteristic will then have sons who inherit this “sexy trait” - making the sons more likely to be selected by successive generations of females who will mate with her offspring
Clark and Hatfield
+research support for inter-sexual selection
supporting the specific role of female choosiness
-sent male and female psychology students out across a uni campus and approached other students with the question of “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. would you go to bed with me tonight?”
Not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of males did immediately.
Buss and Schmitt
-counters clark and Hatfield - too simplistic as strategies differ according to the length of the relationship
-argues that both males and females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships
both sexes are very choosy and look for partners who are loving, loyal and kind for example
-more complex and nuanced view
Buss
+research support for intra-sexual selection
-carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries
he asked questions relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference
he found that females placed greater value on recourse related characteristics than males did, such as good financial prospects and ambition
males valued physical attractiveness and youth (as signs of good reproductive capacity) more than females
Lawson
-sexual selection cannot explain partner preferences in gay men and lesbian women
-looked at ‘personal ads’ placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women (describing what they are looking for in a partner and what they’re offering)
-found the the preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women (physical attractiveness vs recourses)
Altman and Taylor
social penetration theory
gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, giving away deepest thoughts and feelings
-in romantic relationships, this refers to the reciprocal exchange of information between partners
when one partner reveals information, they are signalling ‘I trust you,’ to go further, the other partner must also reveal sensitive information
-as they increasingly disclose more and more romantic partners ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each others lives, gaining a better understanding if each other
Altman and taylor2
breadth and depth of self disclosure
-as both increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other
-compared to layers of an onion =
- at the start of the relationship, we disclose a lot but what we disclose is superficial “on the surface” - low risk information that we would reveal to anyone - breadth is narrow as many topics are off limits and too much information might be overwhelming
-as relationship develops, self disclosure becomes deeper, removing more and more laters to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wide range of topics and tjhings that matter most to us
-eventually, we are prepared to reveal intimate, high risk information -painful memories and experiences
Reis and Shaver
reciprocity of self disclosure
-point out that, for a relationship to develop, as well as an increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
Sprecher and Hendrick
+research support to self disclosure
-studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure for both partners
men and women who used self disclosure (and believed their partners did too) were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship
Later study - showed that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self disclose (reciprocated)
-increases validity
-however, correlational and may have external variables
Haas and Stafford
+real world application - helping people who want to improve communication in their relationships
- found that in 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, this could bring several benefits o their relationships
Tang
-cultural differences in self disclosure
reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men and women in the US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China, levels of satisfaction were no different
Shackleford and Larsen
Found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive - as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness
Dion
-halo effect (preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people have)
“what is beautiful is good”
-found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
-assumption that good looking people have these characteristics makes them more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them (self fulfilling prophecy)
Walster and Falster
Matching hypothesis
-suggests we look for partners who are similar to ourselves (in terms of physical attractiveness and similar in terms of personality, intelligence etc) instead of choosing the most appealing people
-male and female students were invited to a dance and were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start and completed a questionnaire about themselves - they were told the data about themselves and that this information would be used by a computer to decide their partner (they were paired randomly)
-hypothesis was not supported
-the most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own attractiveness into account
-Berscheid replicated the study but ppts were able to select their partner from people - this time, ppts tended to choose partners who matched them in attractiveness
Palmer and Peterson
+research support for halo effect
found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgable and competent than unattractive people - these beliefs persisted even when ppts knew that these ‘knowledgable’ people had no particular expertise
Cunningham
+evolutionary explanation
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
-researchers concluded that what is cnsidered attractive is remarkably consistent across different societies
-attractive features are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetrated similarly in all cultures
Taylor
-research challenging the matching hypothesis -not supported by real world research into dating
-studied activity logs of popular online dating sights (measuring acyl date choices and not merely preferences)
-researchers found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
Kerckhoff and David
Filter theory
compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term relationships and devised a filter theory to explain how romantic relationships form and develop
-partner choice = field of availables (entire set of potential romantic partners who we could realistically have a relationship with)
this is a filtered down version of the field of desirables
1- social demography
2- similarity in attitudes
3- complimentary