Relationships Module Flashcards
Cognitive Explanation
The cognitive approach proposes that personal relationships are formed through internalized mental processes of perception and evaluation.
One theory argues that attraction is influenced by the halo effect, a cognitive bias which causes humans to irrationally associate physical attractiveness with unrelated desirable qualities involved in the success of a relationship.
Alternatively, the matching hypothesis argues that individuals select potential partners they perceive to be similarly attractive as themselves to avoid rejection and increase the likelihood of a successful relationship.
Individualized cognitive explanations for the formation of relationships explains individual differences in how people perceive attractiveness, and how people approach dating using cognitive processes.
Implication
Cognitive explanations for the formation of relationships explain some individual differences in mating behaviours and reproductive strategies.
Application
Since every individual has their own cognitions, it is reasonable that people have differing approaches to mate selection and differing perceptions of who is a good mate or not.
Criticality
However, researchers are susceptible to confirmation bias. As with most other cognitive theories, the halo effect and matching hypothesis are abstract ideas, they are not easily observable. Researchers may therefore aprioristically explain results using their own theories, leading to non-empirical and therefore invalid science.
Moreover, it is reductionist to assume that partner selection is influenced purely by internal mental processes since there exist strict cultural conventions which influence intersexual selection. Cognitive theories as to why relationships form often address a single aspect of relationships, but fail to consider minority groups. However, the cognitive approach complements evolutionary explanations of why relationships forma and provide a deeper understanding of the nature of many relationships.
Dion et al (1972)
Aim: To investigate the role of the halo effect in the formation of personal relationships.
Procedure: Researchers recruited 30 male and 30 female American university students for an experiment. Each participant was given three photos of students whom 100 students had rated attractive, moderately attractive or unattractive before the experiment. Researchers randomized the gender of the students in photos and the order in which they revealed the photos. Participants rated the person in each photo on 27 personality traits using a 6-point scale and completed a survey to rate which of the three were mostly likely to experience marital, parental, and overall happiness, and to indicate which of 30 occupations they were most likely to engage in.
Findings: Researchers found that people in photos rated as more attractive were rated with more positive personality traits (65.39, 62.42, and 56.31 out of 162 points for attractive, moderately attractive and unattractive respectively). They were also associated with higher marital and overall happiness and occupations of higher status, but not with higher parental happiness.
Conclusions: Researchers concluded that more attractive people were more likely to be perceived with positive personality traits, happiness and occupational status.
Link: As cognitive misers, humans seek the simplest method of cognition which minimises cognitive effort. Participants attempted to predict the personality traits and levels of happiness, using physical attractiveness as a cognitive shortcut. This means that humans falsely correlated unrelated traits based on their personality, producing the halo effect cognitive bias. Further research showed that if one is assumed to have positive traits, others are more likely to act positively towards them, causing the positively perceived individual to reciprocate interactions, increasing the likelihood of being chosen as a partner or mate.
Evaluation
Although physical attractiveness is subjective, the photos were rated for attractiveness by 100 other students who likely had similar standards, supporting the construct validity of “attractiveness”.
| Ecological Validity
Despite the rise of online dating, many couples meet in person initially. The task of judging a photo is low in ecological validity, and therefore not an accurate representation of how physical attractiveness (nor other traits) is evaluated in real life. |
Construct Validity|
Taylor et al (2011)
Aim: To investigate the role of the matching hypothesis in the formation of personal relationships.
Procedure: Researchers randomly selected 60 male and 60 female profiles from an online dating site. Researchers tracked the activity logs of these 120 “initiators” to see who responded when they initiated contact. Researchers appointed their own contacts to rate the photos of profiles of initiators and reciprocating contacts for attractiveness on a 7 point scale.
Findings: Researchers found no significant relationship between the mean attractiveness ratings of the initiators and reciprocating contacts. Instead, most people the initiator contacts were rated as more attractive than themselves.
Conclusions: The matching hypothesis does not play a significant role in the formation of personal relationships.
Link: The samples of initiators had a tendency to approach people who were more attractive. This contradicts the matching hypothesis, which proposes that humans select potential mates they evaluate to be equally as attractive themselves in order to maximise the chances of successfully forming a satisfying relationship and minimise the chances of rejection. The study suggests that other cognitive processes and social factors may be more significant in the formation of personal relationships.
Evaluation
Correlational
Researchers used real online dating activity, avoiding demand characteristics and experimenter effects which might undesirably influence results if they conducted an actual experiment. | Generalisability and Ecological Validity
People make aspirational dating choices on online dating sites, whereas people make more realistic choices in real life. The study is therefore only generalisable to online dating sites since the matching hypothesis could play a larger role outside of online dating sites. |
Biological Explanation
Background Information
The biological explanation for the formation of personal relationships is that they are purely for the continuation of the species.
Sexual selection describes behaviours developed to increase reproductive success. Since females ova require are less numerous and require more energy to produce (anisogamy), the reproductive strategies of males and females differ.
According to Parental Investment Theory, females are more selective during intersexual selection as it is evolutionarily beneficial to choose a mate who is capable of caring for offspring; males are less selective as the biological goal is to pass on genetics to females who appear capable of bearing offspring.
This leads to intrasexual selection, whereas individuals of the same sex (often males) compete to exhibit traits representative of their ability to care for children, resulting in sexual dimorphism over long periods of natural selection.
Evolutionary explanations for modern behaviours which benefit reproductive success have been applied to the formation of personal relationships even in modern day.
Holistic Evaluation
Implication
Biological explanations for the formation of relationships explain mating behaviours and reproductive strategies shared by individuals from diverse cultures.
Application
Understanding how evolutionary pressures and biological gender differences offers insight into the origins of physical attraction.
Criticality
- ReductionismIt is reductionist to assume that relationships are purely for reproduction for two reasons. Firstly, some behaviours are better explained by social and cultural factors which also explain different culturally appropriate attitudes to relationships as seen in Buss (1989), and individual differences in what one perceives to be attractive, or what traits one values in a potential partner. Secondly, most theories and experiments do not account for homosexual couples, nor heterosexual couples who do not want children, for whom reproduction is not the goal of their relationships. It would be beneficial to take a holistic approach to explaining relationships.
- Confirmation BiasResearchers are susceptible to confirmation bias. Since natural selection in humans cannot be easily observed, and since little is known about early human behaviour, researchers may attempt to use aprioristic reasoning to explain results using their own evolutionary theories, leading to false, non-empirical, and therefore invalid science.
Ronay and von Hippel (2010)
Aim: To investigate the role of evolutionary factors in mating behaviour, by examining the risk-taking behaviour and testosterone levels of male skateboarders in the presence of an attractive female.
Procedure: Researchers recruited 96 Australian male skateboarders with mean age of 21.58 at a skateboarding park for an experiment. In front of a male researcher, each participant performed one easy and one difficult skateboarding trick 10 times each, between 2 pm and 6 pm. 43 participants performed again in front of a male researcher, and 53 participants in front of a young female researcher who was blind to the experimental aim, chosen after having 20 males rate photos of potential female experimenters for attractiveness. Researchers used the number of aborted attempts as an indicator of risk-taking behaviour, collected saliva samples to test for testosterone levels.
Findings: Researchers found that skateboarders performing in front of the female researcher aborted tricks less frequently, demonstrating risk-taking behaviour. Simultaneously, the participants’ testosterone levels were also higher.
Conclusions: Evolutionary factors such as risk-taking behaviour play a role in intrasexual and intersexual selection.
Link: Ronay and von Hippel (2010) showed that the formation of personal relationships may partially be due to the human desire to mate and to produce offspring for the continuation of the species. The skateboarders’ increased risk-taking behaviour may be due to intrasexual selection (to exhibit own strength in comparison to individuals of the same sex) and intersexual selection (to exhibit own ability to care for offspring to potential mates). Since there was a significant increase in testosterone levels when the skateboarders performed in the presence of the female researcher, there may be a biological evolutionary explanation for the formation of personal relationships.
Evaluation
Ecological Validity: The experiment was done under natural conditions under double-blind conditions, and deception was used to avoid demand characteristics. The conditions are somewhat accurate of attraction in real life, giving it a high natural validity and increasing the applicability of the conclusions to the real world. | Lack of Standardisation: Since the skateboarders chose what tricks they would perform, they were not standardized for difficulty, so the number of aborted attempts might not be a valid indicator of risk-taking behaviour. |
| — | — |
| | Aprioristic Reasoning: It cannot be proven that participants were necessarily attracted to the female researcher, nor that reproduction was the goal of impressing the researcher. Aprioristic reasoning was used to show that results supported the hypotheses, so the results do not provide direct evidence of the evolutionary explanation. |
Buss (1989)
Buss (1989)
Aim: To investigate the differences in traits individuals look for in potential partners across cultures.
Hypothesis: Parental Investment Theory. Researchers expected women to value traits which provide stability and long-term support to care for offspring, whereas men would value traits indicative of fertility and ability to produce offspring, and would highly value chastity to avoid additional burden by investing in another man’s child.
Procedure: Researchers recruited 10047 participants from 37 cultures, from 33 countries. Participants completed one survey where they rated 18 traits on a scale of 0-3 based on how desirable they were in a potential partner, and one survey where they rated 13 characteristics in order of how important they were in a potential partner.
Findings: Researchers found that women from 36/37 cultures valued “financial prospects” higher than men, and that men from 34/37 cultures valued physical characteristics more than women. Men from 23/37 samples highly valued chastity.
Conclusion: Differences in the values men and women desire in potential partners can be explained by evolutionary theories of sexual selection.
Link: Buss (1989) suggests that there is an evolutionary explanation to the gender difference in desired traits in a potential partner. The results of the surveys aligned with Parental investment Theory: women valued long-term stability more than men, and men valued fertility more than women. Both phenomena contribute to their competitiveness in intersexual selection, and maximise the likelihood of successful reproduction for the continuation of the species. There is therefore a biological explanation to mate selection and consequent formation of personal relationships. However, the results did not support the researchers’ hypothesis that men would value chastity to guarantee paternity of the offspring, suggesting that social and cultural factors also play some role in the formation of relationships.
Evaluation
C
Aim: to investigate the difference in attitudes of men and women towards casual intercourse.
Procedure: 48 male, 48 female participants. 4 male and 5 female confederates.
Confederates approaching participants they find attractive and ask 1 of 3 random questions: “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive…”
- Would you go out with me tonight?
- Would you come over to my apartment tonight?
- Would you go to bed with me tonight?
Only during weekdays, not between classes, not during rain.
Findings:
| % of agreement | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 |
| — | — | — | — |
| Male Participant | 50 | 69 | 75 |
| Female Participant | 50 | 6 | 0 |
Conclusion
The attitudes of men and women towards casual intercourse differ significantly.
In terms of evolutionary theory, this can be explained by Parental Investment Theory: women spend more effort in many aspects of pregnancy and childbirth than men, so it would be advantageous to the health of both the mother and children to conceive only when the parents are prepared. Casual intercourse can lead to unexpected pregnancies, the female participants are more likely to reject offers by male confederates. Females’ stricter attitudes towards causal intercourse and mate selection may have developed by natural selection due to the evolutionary advantages.
Evaluation
|Parallel Forms Reliability| Researchers used two surveys similar in content but different in structure. Since the results were consistent across the surveys, the surveys were highly reliable.
|Construct Validity| The nomothetic approach to the investigation leads to problems with construct validity as cultural-specific understandings of relationships differ. For example, polygamy is common in Nigeria, and Swedish couples live together but do not marry, challenging whether the surveys accurately describe all relationships.
Parallel Forms Reliability: Researchers used two surveys similar in content but different in structure. Since the results were consistent across the surveys, the surveys were highly reliable. | Construct Validity: The nomothetic approach to the investigation leads to problems with construct validity as cultural-specific understandings of relationships differ. For example, polygamy is common in Nigeria, and Swedish couples live together but do not marry, challenging whether the surveys accurately describe all relationships. |
| — | — |
| Back-translation: Researchers translated and back-translated survey questions to standardize the meaning of the questionnaire and to produce more valid and reliable results. | Surveys: The value of the 4 Likert scale choices may not have been interpreted in the same way, leading to problems with reliability and the validity of the survey. |
| Generalizability: Due to the large cross-cultural sample and range of used in the study, the results of the study are generalizable to individuals from many cultures and social backgrounds, which helps the nomothetic biological explanation to the formation of relationships. | |
