Relationships L1 - 4 Flashcards
What is Darwin’s (1871) concept about sexual selection?
Selection of those characteristics that aid successful reproduction rather than survival
What is the basis of human reproductive behaviour and what is this?
- Anisogamy
- Refers to difference between male and female sex cells
Compare the characteristics of egg and sperm cells:
- Egg: Large, static, significant investment of energy, produced at intervals for limited number of years
One consequence of anisogamy:
No shortage of fertile males but fertile females are a rarer resource
Inter-sexual selection:
- Between sexes
- Strategies that females use to select males and vice versa
5 male strategies for mating success:
1) Courtship rituals
2) Size
3) Sperm competition
4) Mate guarding
5) Sneak copulation
What is the purpose of courtship rituals?
Allows males to display genetic potential
How does size affect success of mating?
Demonstrates strength for success in competition against others
How does natural selection influence sperm competition?
Produces:
- large testicles
- bigger ejaculations
- faster swimming sperm
How does mate guarding work?
- Males fear being cuckolded
- Keep an eye on and close contact w/ female partners to prevent them mating with others
Cuckolded:
Anothed male gets their partner pregnant (having to spend resources raising another man’s child)
What did Buss (1993) say?
- Men are fearful of partners being sexually unfaithful
- Females worry about emotion unfaithfulness
Sneak copulation:
Males mate with other females (vice versa) to increase chances of reproductive success
How do women benefit from sneak copulation?
Increase wider genetic diversity of their children, which increases survival
3 female strategies for mating success:
1) Sexy sons hypothesis
2) Handicap hypothesis
3) Courtship
Sexy sons hypothesis:
- Developed by Fisher (1930)
- Females select attractive males so they’ll produce sons with same attractive features
Handicap hypothesis:
- Zahavi (1975)
- Females select males w/ handicaps like males who drink and take drugs
- Because it shows they are able to handle it
How do females use courtship for mating success?
- Use courtship to select males on basis of reproductive fitness
- Increases chances of males not deserting them, as they invest resources
Intra-sexual selection:
- Within each sex
- Strategies between males to be the one selected (competition)
Compare the preferred strategy of females and males for selection:
- Preferred strategy of males is quantity over quality as they have enough sperm but eggs are rare
- Preferred strat for females is quality over quantity
What has this strategy given rise to and what does this mean?
- Dimorphism
- Males and females end up looking different because of intra-sexual selection
Give one example of dimorphism:
There is likely to be physical competition between males because larger males are more likely to win. However, females do not have this because they do not need to compete for reproductive rights
What are the negative behavioural consequences of intra-sexual selection?
Males being more deceitful, intelligent and aggressive
Strengths and weaknesses of explanations for partner preferences: (+1, -4)
+ Research support –> Clark and Hatfield (1989), Pawlowski and Dunbar (1999), Buss (1989)
- Assumes one strategy is adaptive for all
- Social and cultural influences have been underestimated
- Cannot explain partner preferences for homosexual persons
- Negative behavioural consequences
Clark and Hatfield (1989):
- Male and female psych students sent out to uni campus
- Asked question ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’
- No female students agreed to this, whereas 75% of males did
- Shows both genders have evolved diff strategies to ensure reproductive success
Pawlowksi and Dunbar (1999):
- Older women between 35 and 50 do not disclose their true age in personal ads
- This is because men judge female partners on age, as it corresponds to fertility
Buss (1989):
- Survey of 10,000 adults in 33 countries
- Questions relating to variety of attributes predicted by evolutionary theory
- Females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics
- Males valued physical attractiveness and youth more
Give one study that shows why evolutionary explanations are too reductionist:
- Buss and Schmitt (2016)
- Both males and females looking for long-term relationships look for partners that are loving, loyal and kind, which shows relationships are much more complex
How have social and cultural influences been underestimated?
Social norms of behaviour develop much faster than evolution
Give one study showing the changes in women’s mate preferences due to social norms:
- Bereckzei et al (1997)
- No longer rely on men being breadwinners
Why can’t evolutionary theory explain homosexual mate preferences?
They are not looking for genetic fitness
Give one study showing the difference between heterosexual and homosexual mate preferences:
- Lawson et al (2014)
- Looked at personal ads placed by hetero and homo individuals describing what they’re looking for in a partner
- Not similar in choosing partners
Self-disclosure:
Revealing personal info about yourself
Whose and which theory explains self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social penetration theory
What is social penetration theory?
- Gradual process of revealing your inner self
- Reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners
- As more info is shared, partners penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives
- This encourages reciprocity
What are the 2 elements of self-disclosure?
- Breadth
- Depth
Reis and Shaver (1988):
- There must be reciprocity in disclosure for a relationship to develop
- Balance of self-disclosure increases intimacy of relationship
Strengths and weaknesses of social penetration theory: (+2,-2)
+ Research support –> Sprecher and Hendrick (2004), Sprecher et al (2013)
+ Practical value to improve communication in relationships –> Haas and Stafford (1998)
- A lot of research is correlational, not causational for satisfaction –> Sprecher and Hendrick (2004)
- Not true for all cultures that self-disclosure leads to more intimate relationships –> Nu Tang et al (2013)
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004):
- Studied heterosexual couples
- Strong correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure
Sprecher et al (2013):
Confirmed reciprocity of self-disclosure as a factor helping relationships to be more satisfying
Haas and Stafford (1998):
- 57% of homosexual men and women said honest and open self-disclosure was main way they maintained and deepened their relationship
- Less-skilled partners could use this to improve their own relationship
Nu Tang et al (2013):
- Reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure
- Concluded US individualistic culture self-disclose more about sexual practices compared to Chinese collectivist cultures
- Despite low levels of self-disclosure, levels of satisfaction were same as USA
Physical attractiveness:
How appealing we find a person’s face
Give one study showing why physical attractiveness is important in the formation of relationships and explain this:
- Shackelford and Larsen (1997)
- People with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive possibly because it is an honest sign of genetic fitness
Who created the halo effect and what is it?
- Dion et al (1972)
- What is beautiful is good
- Preconceived ideas about about personality traits attractive people have mean we assume they are also good
Dion et al (1972):
- Physically attractive people are consistently rated kind, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
- Self-fulfilling prophecy –> belief that physically attractive people are nice so we act positively towards them
Strengths and weaknesses of halo effect: (+1, -1)
+ Research evidence –> Palmer and Peterson (2012), Cunningham et al (1995), Kim (1997)
- Conflicting research evidence –> Towhey
Palmer and Peterson (2012):
- Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people
- These assumptions persisted even when people knew these people actually has no particular expertise
Cunningham et al (1995):
Female features of large eyes, small nose and prominent cheek bones were rated as physically attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males
Kim (1997):
USA and Korean students judged physically attractive people to be trustworthy, mature and friendly, but this was less evident for unattractive people
Towhey’s study:
- Asked male and female pps to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photo and some biological info
- Also completed a MACHO scale measuring sexist attitudes and behaviours
- Those who scored low on questionnaire did not value physical attractiveness much
Matching hypothesis:
Belief that we don’t select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but instead are attracted to a person who approximately matches our physical attractiveness
Give one study supporting the matching hypothesis and what did they suggest about relationships?
- Walster and Walster (1969)
- We look for partners similar to ourselves not only in physical attractiveness but also in terms of personality and intelligence
Walster and Walster (1969) procedure:
- 177 male and 170 female students from Uni of Minnesota
- Fill in questionnaire about IQ and personality and were told they would be allocated an ideal partner for an evening date (pairings were actually done randomly by computer)
- Meanwhile 4 independent judges judge each person on their physical attractiveness
- After evening dance, they were asked how much they liked their date and if they wished to see them again
- Followed up 6 months later using questionnaires
Walster and Walster (1969) findings:
- Hypothesis unsupported
- Most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account
- Personality and intelligence didn’t affect liking the dates
Give one study that evaluates Walster and Walster (1969):
- Berscheid et al (1971)
- Replicated the study but allowed pps to select their partner from varying degrees of attractiveness
- This time pps tended to choose partners matching them in physical attractiveness
Strengths and weaknesses of matching hypothesis: (+1,-1)
+ Research support –> Walster and Walster (use of large samples), Feingold (1988)
- Unsupported by real-world research on dating –> Taylor et al (2011)
Taylor et al (2011):
- Studied activity logs of popular online dating sites
- Found that online daters wanted to date and meet potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
Feingold (1988):
- Meta-analysis of 17 studies
- Significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners that are similar to them in attractiveness
Filter theory:
Explanation of relationship formation that states different factors reduces range of available romantic partners
What 3 filters does filter theory include?
1) Social demography
2) Similarity of attitudes
3) Complementarity of needs
What did Kerchoff and Davis (1962) find about filter theory?
There are filtering factors at different stages of the partner selection process
Social demography filter:
- Based on social characteristics eg age, ethnicity, proximity
- May feel they have more in common with them
Similarity on attitudes filter:
- Based on psychological characteristics eg same attitudes, beliefs and values
- Happens through self-disclosure
- Helps predict stability if relationship has lasted 18 months or less
Complementarity of needs:
- Based on emotional characteristics
- More satisfaction and attraction if people have different needs
- Lead to longlasting relationships
What key study was conducted on Filter Theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis on filter theory
Procedure of Kerckhoff and Davis:
- Longitudinal study of 94 couples from Duke Uni in USA
- 2 questionnaires to assess degree of shared attitudes, values and complementarity to assess closeness
- 7 months later –> Another questionnaire to see how close they felt to partner
- Compared to previous ones
Findings and conclusion of Kerckhoff and Davis:
- Short term partners found similarity of attitudes and values were important for closeness
- Long term ones relied on complementarity of needs as a predictor for closeness
- Long term and short term relationships rely on different filter factors to predict closeness
Who is regarded as short term partners?
18 months or less
Strengths and weakness of filter theory: (+1,-3)
+ Research support –> Kerchoff and Davis (1962), Taylor (2010), Hoyle (1993), Tidwell
- Failure to replicate
- Conflicting research evidence –> Levinger (1970), Anderson (2003)
- Lacks temporal validity –> online dating
Taylor (2010):
- Supports social demography
- 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 married someone from same ethnic group
Hoyle (1993):
Found perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction more strongly than actual attitude similarity
Tidwell:
- Participants had to make quick decisions about attraction during speed dating
- Measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using questionnaire
- Found perceived similarity predicted romantic liking more than actual similarity
Levinger (1970):
- Research on 330 couples
- Found no evidence of similarity of attitudes/complementarity of needs being important into permanence of relationship over time
What is another conflicting statement against Kerchoff and Davis?
They say a relationship becomes long term after 18 months, however this has been disputed
Anderson (2003):
- Longitudinal study of cohabiting partners
- Became more similar in terms of attitudes and emotional responses over time, increasing attraction (emotional convergence)
How does online dating show a lack of temporal validity in filter theory?
Internet means there is a reduction in social demographic variables eg easy to meet people further away/ diff ethnicity
