Relationships: AO1 Flashcards
Sexual Selection
- attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring
Anisogamy
- the basis of human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy which refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
- sperm: small, highly mobile, created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age and don’t need much energy to be produced
- eggs: relatively large, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require a significant investment of energy
- these differences mean that males and females need to use different startegies to achieve reproductive success
- females produce eggs at high physiological cost, this females prioritise quality over quantity in reproduction
- males produce sperm at a low physiological cost, as a result males aim to mate with many females to maximise the number of offspring, prioritising quantity over quality
Intrasexual Selection
- strategies between males to be the one that’s selected
- has behavioural consequences such as aggression as males compete with eachother
Intersexual Selection
- strategies males use to select females or females use to select males
- preferred strategy of females
- Trivers 1972 pointed out that females make a greater investment of time, commitment and resources so are choosier as consequences are much more serious if wrong partner picked
Runaway Process
over time we would see an increase in a particular trait because women would mate with males with that trait, to procude sons with that trait and daughts who also have a preference for that trait
Biological Marketplace
- Noe and Hammerstein 1995
- genes that show attractive features are more ‘saleable’ and will be chosen
Sexy Sons Hypothesis
- Ronald Fisher 1930
- women will choose men with good genes so that their sons will have good genes and will also then be selected by women to mate with
Sexual Dimorphism
the difference in appearance between males and females of the same species
Parental Investment
the sex that invests the most in its young (women) will evolve to be more selective in choice of partner
Self Disclosure
- Jourard 1971
- revealing personal information about yourself
- romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops
- strengthens a romantic bond when used appropriately
Social Penetration Theory
- Altman and Taylor 1973
- gradual process of revealing inner self to someone else
- involves reciprocal exchange
- 2 elements: breadth and depth
- metaphor of many layers of onion: disclose a lot at the start (breadth) but often superficial and ‘on the surface’ (depth) like outer layers of an onion
- gets deeper as relationship goes on, balance of self disclosure between both partners in successful relationship which increases intimacy
- depenetration: dissatisfied partners self disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship
Physical Attractiveness: Symmetrical Faces
- people with symmetrical faces are perceived to be more attractive as this is a sign of good genes (Shackelford and Larsen 1997) that can’t be faked
- associated ‘robust’ genes are passed onto future offspring
Physical Attractiveness: Neotenous Faces
- people are attracted to faces with baby face features
- e.g. widely separated large eyes, delicate chin and small nose
- triggers a protective or caring instint
Physical Attractiveness: Halo Effect
- the belief that someone who is physically attractive also has a pretty personality to match
- we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have and they are almost universally positive
- Dion et al (1972) found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
Matching Hypothesis
- Walster et al 1966
- suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (as well as personality and intelligence)
- two hypotheses: An individual would most often choose to date a partner of approximately their own attractiveness, The more socially desirable a person is the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.
- They argue that individuals looking for a partner will also be influenced by the notion of realistic choices: The desirability of the potential match (what they want), The probability of the person saying ‘yes’ (what they think they can get).
Filter Theory
- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term and long term relationships and devised filter theory to explain how such romantic relationships form and develop
- in terms of partner choice we all have a field of availables, the entire set of potential romantic partners
- there are 3 main factors that act as filters to narrow down our range of partner choice to a field of desirables
3 Factors in Filter Theory
1) social demography
2) similarity in attitudes
3) complementarity
Filter Theory: Social Demography
- variables that determine the likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place
- the range of people that are realistically available for us to meet
- these are the types of people we tend to find most attractive initially since similarity makes communication easier and we’ve something immediately in common with them
- e.g. ethnicity, race, religion, social class, education
Filter Theory: Similarity in Attitudes
- involves psychological characteristics specifically agreement on basic values
- this helps to promote self disclosure and deeper communication
- found to be best predictor of relationship becoming more stable and permanent
- without similarity partners may date for a while then relationship will fizzle out
Filter Theory: Complementarity
- the best predictor for longer term commitment
- your partner having traits you may lack but together would make a whole
- complementary behaviours take account of each others needs
- helps relationship feel less superficial which increases attraction
SET: Minimax Principle
- we try to minimise losses and maximise gains in a relationship by having more rewards than costs
- these are subjective and can change over the course of a relationship
Social Exchange Theory
- Thibault & Kelly (1959)
- claims behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
SET: 4 Stages of Relationship Development
1) sampling
2) bargaining
3) commitment
4) institutionalisation
SET: Sampling Stage
we explore the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our relationships (not just romantic ones) or by observing others do so
SET: Bargaining Stage
this marks the beginning of a relationship when romantic partners start by exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating and identifying what’s most profitable
SET: Commitment Stage
as time goes on the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen
SET: Institutionalisation Stage
the partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship, in terms of costs and rewards, are firmly established
SET: Comparison Level
- the amount of reward you believe you deserve
- links to self esteem
- develops out of the experience of previous relationships
- if current relationship compares favourably with past relationships we’re motivated to stay
- CL changes as we acquire more ‘data’, consider relationship worth pursuing if CL is high
- media influences CL too
SET: Comparison Level for Alternatives
- provides wider context for current relationship
- we stay in current relationship only so long as we believe it’s more rewarding than alternatives
- the CLalt we adopt depends on state of current relationship
- if current isn’t going well alternatives become more attractive
Equity Theory
- Walster et al (1978)
- assumes most people try to achieve fairness in relationships and feel distress if they perceive unfairness
- equitable relationships should be one where one partners profits equals their partners profits
- inequity seen as having potential to create dissatisfaction
- underbenefitting partner feels anger, sadness, resentment
- over benefitting partner feels self-pity, guilt, shames
Equity Theory: Distribution
trade offs and compensations are negotiated to achieve fairness in a relationship
Equity Theory: Dissatisfaction
the greater the degree of perceived unfairness the greater the sense of dissatisfaction
Equity Theory: Realignment
if restoring equity is possible, maintenance will continue with attempts made to realign equity
Investment Model
- Rusbult (1983)
- maintenance of relationship determined by commitment
- can be strengthened by satisfaction and investment and weakened by presence of alternatives
Investment Model: Satisfaction
- based on concept of CL
- satisfying relationship judged by comparing rewards and costs and seen to be profitable if has many rewards and few costs
- each partner generally satisfied if getting more out of relationship than expect based on previous experience and social norms
Investment Model: Investment
- anything lost if relationship were to end
- intrinsic: any resources put directly into relationship
- extrinsic: resources that previously didn’t feature in relationship but now closely associated with it
Investment Model: Presence of Alternatives
- comparison with alternatives results in romantic partners asking themselves: ‘could my needs be better met outside my current relationship?’
- alternatives include not just relationships with other people but possibility of having no romantic relationship at all
