Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary Explanations of Partner Preferences
Partner prefects are driven by sexual selection, means males and females choose partners in order to maximise choices of reproductive success
Individuals w max reproductive success, are more likely to survive and pass on the genes responsible for their success
Males = gametes reproduce quickly w little energy
Female = less plentiful = more energy needed
Intra Sexual Production
Members of one sex (usually male) compete w one another for access to the other sex
Leads to male-female dimorphism = accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics in greater reproductive fitness
Anisogamy = difference between male and female gametes suggests that males best evolutionary strategy is to have as many partners as possible, males must compete w w other males to present themselves as most attractive mate to fertile females
Mate guarding = guard female partner to prevent them mating with anyone else, males very fearful of having to raise another man’ s child (cuckholdry)
Inter Sexual Selection
Where one sex (usually female) choose from available prospective mates (usually males) according to attractiveness
Anisogamy suggests females best evolutionary strategy is to be selective when choosing a partner
Females seek a strong, high status and resourced partner, as male can protect and provide for their children
Although this may be equated to muscular strength in evolutionary past, more likely to be occupation and social class, or wealth now
+ of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
- Buss (1989) conducted survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found females reported valuing resources based characteristics, whilst men valued good looks, preferring younger partners
- Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted study where male and female psychology students were asked to approach fellow students at uni of florida of opposite sex, and ask them to go on a date, back to apartment, or go to bed with them
50% men and women agreed to date, 75% men agreed to go to bed with them, whereas only 6% women agreed to the apartment, whereas 0% agreed to go to bed
— evolutionary explanation for partner preferences
- deterministic = suggests we have little free will over our partner choice, however everyday experience tells us we do have some control over partner preferences
- its socially sensitive, as promotes traditional and sexist views regarding what are natural male and female roles, which dont apply to modern society
Women are now more career orientated and may not look for resourceful husbands as they do not need them and the availability of contraception - evolutionary theory makes little attempt to explain other relationships, other than heterosexual ones, and cultural variations in relationships which exist across the world, such as arranged marriages
What is self disclosure?
A factor that affects attraction in romantic relationships, and is the revealing of personal information about the self, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences to another person
Self disclosure in the social penetration theory
- It is a central concept in the social penetration theory proposed by Altman and Taylor.
- The theory claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences to their partner, couples gain greater understanding of each other and display trust, which increases trust. The increase in trust built increases the depth and breadth of self disclosure, as in the beginning only superficial details, but gradually reveal more intimate details
- Self Disclosing too quickly reduces attraction
What is reciprocal self disclosure?
People expect the same level of self disclosure from others as they actually give, the more self disclosure someones gives, the more they expect in return
+ of self disclosure
- research of self disclosure by Altman and Taylor showed that self disclosure on the first date is inappropriate and did not increase attraction levels, person self disclosing seen as maladjusted and not very likeable
- Tal-Or conducted research agreeing with fundamental concept that can affect attraction for romantic relationshipss
Analysis of reality TV shows, like big brother, revealed contestants didnt like people who self disclosed too early, preferring gradual - kito found evidence across different cultures, by investigating students in American and Japanese schools, in different relationships, and found self disclosure was high for both types of students in heterosexual romantic relationships
— of self disclosure
- Sprecher (2013) found research evidence that level of self disclosure recieved is best predictpr is liking and loving, rather than amount given, which goes against the idea of reciprocal self disclosure
- Seems unlikely that attraction to partner is based only on self disclosure, but although it might be an important part, other elements also needed to increase attraction, such as similar attitudes, and complementarity of needs
Physical Attractiveness
Affects attraction in romantic relationships
Men place great deal of importance on it when choosing female partner in short and long term, whereas although also very important for women, its less important in long term more in short term
Physical attractiveness varies across culture and time
Halo Effect
- when the general impression of a person is incorrectly formed from one characteristic alone (e.g. physical attractiveness).
- Physically attractive people are often seen as more sociable, optimistic, successful and
trustworthy - People tend to behave positively towards people who are physically attractive = self-fulfilling prophecy, physically
attractive person behaves even more positively because of the positive attention they receive
+ of halo effect
Palmer and Peterson (2012)
Physically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable than unattractive, halo effect persisted even when told that attractive individuals had no expertise in politics = strength of halo effect
— of halo effect
Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they
liked an individual based on a photograph. -Participants also completed a MACHO
scale which measured sexist attitudes and behaviour.
- found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were more influenced by
physical attractiveness. Those who scored low on the questionnaire did not
value physical attractiveness.
-Therefore, the influence of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors (e.g. personality).
matching hypothesis
Individuals seek partners that have the social desirability as themselves, and physical attractiveness becomes a major determining factor, as it is an accessible way for people to rate each other as a potential partner before forming a relationship
Most people prefer from relationship with someone physically attractive, but dont want to be rejected, so approach w similar attractiveness to themselves
+ of matching hypothesis
- Fangold (1988) meta analysis of 17 studies of real life couples ans found that there was a strong positive correlation between partners ratings of physical attractiveness, as matching hypothesis predicts
— of matching hypothesis
- Walster (1966) invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party, randomly matched to a partner;
however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of physical attractiveness.
At the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them.
Contrary to the matching hypothesis students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness. - Sometimes a very physically attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person. Often a rebalance of traits will occur, whereby the less physically attractive person has some other traits to make up for their lack of physical attractiveness (e.g. being rich, having a high status or great
personality). This is called complex matching whereby a very attractive person
forms a relationship with an unattractive person
Filter theory of attraction
Developed by Kerchoff and David (1962)
Filtering used to reduce field of available partners, down to field of desirable partners
3 types filtering when wemeet someone
- social demography
-similaroty in attitude
- complementarity of needs
We tend to be attracted to people who pass through those filters
Filtering for short term and long term relationships
From outset = filter by age, sex, education, social background etc..
More attracted to people from similar backgrounds to our own
We choose people w similar attitudes to own
(Similarity of attitudes)
In longer term, we choose people who complemeny our own traits / neds (complementarity of needs)
+ of filter theory
- Taylor (2010) found evidence to support filter theory.
He found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 had married someone
from their own ethnic group, supporting the social demography part of filter theory. Individuals seem to choose partners that are similar to them and have a
similar background to them.
+ Research conducted by Hoyle (1993) supports the filter theory when looking at the importance of attitude similarity and sharing common values for attraction.
Hoyle found that perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction more strongly than actual attitude similarity.
Tidwell tested this hypothesis during a speed dating event whereby participants had to make quick decisions about attraction.
He measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using a questionnaire and found that perceived similarity predicted romantic liking
more than actual similarity
— of filter theory
- Levinger (1970) conducted research using 330 couples and found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship was.
- Filter theory has been criticised because it suggests that people are attracted to each other because they have similar social demography.
Anderson (2003) found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction. At the start of the relationship, their attitudes were not so similar.
This is called emotional convergence. - Research using online dating has shown a lack of support for filter theory in that it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form.
The internet has meant that there is a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone, and it is now easier to meet people who live far away, or who have a different ethnicity, social class and background.
We might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits, and this is very apparent now, compared to the past (30 years ago)
L5 Social Exchange Theory what is it?
Relationships are, “like a business” whereby we
monitor the rewards and the costs.
We all want the maximum rewards from a
relationship and the minimum costs.
The theory proposes that individuals focus on getting out of a relationship more than they put into it.
Theory assumes those wjo offer rewards are attractive and those perceived involve greeat costs are less attractive
Mutually beneficial relationships = succeed
One person has more costs = fails
L5: What is comparison level? And comparison level with alternatives?
We compare our present relationships to previous relationships we have had
We compare our present partner with people around us who we could potentially have a relationship with
We look for a better deal if our current relationship is not satisfactory
L6 What is equity theory
Equity theory is an economic model of relationships based on the idea of fairness for each partner. It emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between their costs/effort and their benefits/rewards.
L6 What happens if there is an imbalance in cost amd rewards
Distress will be felt if the relationship becomes unfair. If people over-benefit in their relationship and receive more rewards than their partner they might feel guilt or pity.
Under-benefit in their relationship and receive less rewards than their partner, they might feel angry or sad.
An imbalance of rewards can be tolerated as long as both parties accept the situation; then the relationship will continue. An example could be that someone has lost their job, and their partner will tolerate and understand this.
L6 Equity and Equality
Equity does not always mean equality. Equity also means “fairness,” and each person in the relationship must feel that the relationship is fair. An equitable relationship has a fair ratio of rewards and costs for each individual.
L6 + of equity theory
+ DeMaris (2007) studied 1500 couples as part of the US National Survey of Families and Households. He found that if women were under-benefitting to a high degree, then there was a high risk of divorce occurring. Therefore equity and inequity seem to be very important for women in a relationship.
+ Brosnan (2003) found that female monkeys became angry if they were denied a prize (grapes) for playing a game with a researcher, especially if they saw another monkey who had not played the game receive the grapes instead. The monkeys got so angry that they hurled food at the experimenter. It seems that ideas of equity are rooted in our ancient origins.
L6 - of equity theory
- Equity theory is more applicable to individualistic cultures rather than collectivist cultures. In individualistic cultures people might be more concerned with equal rewards and costs in order for a relationship to be successful. However, in collectivist cultures, extended family networks and family values might be more important when maintaining a relationship, rather than focusing on rewards and costs and the idea of equity. Relationships in collectivist cultures might be successful due to cultural expectations and obligations of roles rather than equity of rewards and costs.
- Buunk (1996) found no association between equity in a relationship and the future quality and maintenance of a relationship. Therefore just because a relationship is equitable and fair in terms of rewards and costs; it does not mean that the relationship will progress. People have free will to choose whether to continue with a relationship or not; and just because a relationship is equitable it does not mean the relationship will necessarily continue and last.
- Research conducted by Mills and Clark (1982) criticised equity theory. They said that it is not possible to assess equity in loving relationships, as many of the rewards and costs are emotional/psychological and cannot be easily quantified or measured. If we measure rewards and costs then it could diminish the quality of love in the relationship which could be damaging.
