Relationships (Paper 3) Flashcards
Sexual selection
-Explains why some characteristics may be an advantage in human reproductive behaviour because the characteristics are attractive to potential mates.
-E.g. greater height, certain facial and bodily features)
INTER SEXUAL SELECTION
-Preferred strategy of the female, quality over quantity
-Ovaries are rarer than sperm and require greater energy to produce
-Females also have to make a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after birth of offspring
-Have to be choosy as women have more to lose (a lot of time and limited eggs)
-Therefore look for partner with characteristics to be passed down to the child who will then be able to find a partner and carry on bloodline
-This process allows continuation of human race
INTRA SEXUAL SELECTION
-Preferred strategy of male, quantity over quality
-Can reproduce unlimited times with no effort
-Competition between males to mate with a female
-Winners of competition reproduce and pass on desired characteristics
-Given rise to dimorphism, where there are differences between male and female. Females don’t need to be large to reproduce so therefore are generally smaller
-Males also have to have behaviour characteristics like aggression to protect partner from other competitors
David Buss: research support
-10,000 adults in 33 countries
-Asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference
-Found that female respondents placed greater value on resource related characteristics such as good financial prospects, ambition than males did
-Males placed more value on good looks etc
-This reflects sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy
Inter sexual selection: research support
-Clark and Hatfield showed female choosiness is a reality of heterosexual relationships.
-Male and female psychology students sent out across a university campus
-Approached other students and asked ‘I’ve noticed you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Will you go to bed with me tonight?’
-Not a single female student agreed whereas 75% of men did immediately
-Supports evolutionary theory because it suggests females are choosier than males when it comes to selecting partners and males have a different strategy to ensure reproduction
Sexual selection ignores social and cultural influence
-Partner preferences over past century have been influenced by changing social norms of sexual behaviour
-These have come about due to cultural factors such as contraception
-Women’s greater role in workplace also mean they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them (despite ongoing inequality and earning power)
-It’s argued that this social change has consequences for women’s mate preferences, may no longer be resource orientated
Factors affecting attraction in relationships; self disclosure
Jourad
-Coined term self disclosure
-Relationship formation is built on trust with another person
-This is determined by revealing personal information like thoughts and feelings
-Leads to greater intimacy in romantic relationships, as a result leads to more satisfaction
What is self disclosure
-Two main dimensions described as breadth and depth
-‘Onion metaphor’ used to describe these dimensions
-People share a lot information about themselves
-Some topics however are off limits
-As trust is built, depth of information grows, onion layers are peeled back
Breadth and depth
-We disclose a lot of information about ourselves at the beginning, but mainly low risk information
-The breadth of disclosure is narrow as we might threaten relationship with too much information
-The deeper the relationship goes the more layers get peeled back and we reveal more about ourselves, higher risk information
Reis and Shaver
-For a relationship or develop there has to be a balance of self disclosure between partners
-Instead of one sharing and one listening, there needs to be an even exchange in return
-This could lead to greater intimacy and deeper understanding of the romantic relationship
Sprecher et al
Aim: To investigate the role of reciprocal self disclosure in relationships
Method: 156 American University Students, female-female or male-female pairs in a Skype conversation
CONDITION 1- Self disclosure in reciprocal manor, take turns to ask questions
CONDITION 2- Self disclosure was not reciprocal, one disclosed and other listened
Results: Condition 1 participants reported a greater liking, closeness, similarity and enjoyment to one another compared to Condition 2
Conclusion: Reciprocity of self disclosure has positive outcomes for romantic relationships
Evaluation of self disclosure
Strengths
-Hass and Stafford found, 57% of gay men and women said that open and honest self disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationships
-Self disclosure research allows for individuals to improve on their own personal relationships, real life application
Limitations
-Tang et al, prediction of self disclosure leading to more romantic relationships might not be applicable to all cultures
-Men and women in USA (individualist) self disclose significantly more sexual thoughts/feelings than Menander women in China (collectivist)
-Self disclosure is based on Western romantic relationships
-Correlation vs Causation, mainly correlational
Physical attractiveness
-McNulty et al, physical attraction is a huge part of romantic relationship even years after marriage
-Cunningham, many physical features that men find attractive are linked to the youth and health of a woman. Men prefer a childlike face with widely separated large eyes and a small nose and chin
Matching hypothesis
-Idea that individuals will not go for physically attar give partner, but rather a partner who they view as on the same level of physical attractiveness as themselves
-A persons choice of partner is a balance between a desire to have most physically attractive give partner possible whilst not getting rejected
-Therefore ppl choose partners who have roughly same level of attractiveness, need to be realistic
Physical attraction research- Halo Effect
Dion et al
-Attractive people are consistently rated as successful, kind and sociable compared to unattractive people
-We tend to behave more positively towards more attractive people
Walster et al
Aim: Examine matching hypothesis
Method:
-Advertised a computer dance for rushers in first week at university of Minnesota
-376 meals and 376 females volunteered and let in for $1
-4 independent judges secretly rented the students in terms of attractiveness whilst they were collecting their tickets
-P’s filled in questionnaire and told data would be used to determine similarities between males and females to find partner for dance
-During intervals at the dance, and 4-6 months later students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a date with them
Results:
-Once participants were paired in a male and female partnership, partners responded more positively to others who had been rated as physically attractive, irrespective of their own level of attractiveness
-Pattern was echoed in willingness to ask out paired partner on another date
-Females rated as physically attractive frequently asked out on a second date by males who were not rated as physically attractive
Conclusion: Students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level or attractiveness
Support for Matching hypothesis
Feingold
-Meta analysis of 17 studies
-Found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners
Support against matching hypothesis
-Investigated the activity log on a dating website
-Found that website users were more likely to try and arrange a meeting with a potential partner who was more physically attractive than them.
-Contradict the Matching Hypothesis – website users should seek more dates with a person who is similar in terms of attractiveness because it provides them with a better chance of being accepted by a potential partner
Filter theory: Factors affecting physical attraction
Kerckhoff and Davis
-Compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term (Less than 18 months) and longer term relationships
-Devised theory to explain how these relationships form
-Once meeting a person, we engage in the three stages of filtering
3 factors:
Lvl 1. Social demographics
Lvl 2. Similarity in attitudes
Lvl3. Complementarity
Social demography: Lvl 1
-Refers to many factors that influence chance of potential partners meeting each other. These factors can include: proximity, class, level of education and ethnicity/religion
-We are more likely to meet ppl we see fit as partners that are within close proximity to us
-Choice of partner is much narrower due to social circumstances, e.g. more likely to form relationship with someone who is culturally or socially similar
Similarity in attitudes- Lvl 2
-Applied once poo, or partners narrowed by stage 1
-Individuals will look for partners with similar psychological factors and shared beliefs- ‘field of desirables’
Kerckhoff and Davis found second stage was important for short term relationships
-Law of attraction, presence/absence of similarities is discovered through self-disclosure, leading to greater feelings of intimacy or if they have little in common relationships rarely develop
Complementarity- Lvl 3
-Concerns ability of partners to meet each others needs
-Partners will compliment one another when they have traits that their significant other lacks
Kerckhoff and Davis
-The need for complementarity is more important for long term couples
-Gives two individuals the feeling that when they are together they make a whole, adding depth to a relationship
Support for filter theory
-Face validity, assumes key factors in a relationship change over time, agrees with most individuals experiences of relationships
-Winch (1958), evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes are typical in the early stages of relationships
Limitations of filter theory
Lack of research support
-Levinger et al failed to replicate results of Kerckhoff and Davis’ study. In 330 couples who were steadily attached went through same procedure as kerckhoff and Davis’ study. Found that similarity of attitudes or complimentary of needs did not contribute to progress relationships
Social exchange theory: theories of romantic relationships
Thibault and Kelley
-Behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange
-We want to maximise our ‘profits’ while also minimising our ‘losses’ associated with the relationship
-What ine person considers a significant rewards might be considered less valuable by another individual
Blau (1964)
-Relationships can be ‘expensive’
-Relationships also include an opportunity cost, your investment of time and energy in your current relationship means using resources that aren’t valuable elsewhere
Comparison level- measuring profit
-Amount of reward and individual believes they deserve to get
-Forms from previous experiences of relationships, leading to the expectations of the current one
-Social norms also dictate what constitutes a reward
-Individuals with low self esteem will have low comparison levels and therefore will be satisfied with gaining small profits or even losses from a relationship
-Individuals with high self esteem believe they deserve a lot more
Comparison levels of alternatives (CLAT): measuring profit
-Idea of could we gain greater rewards and lesser costs from a relationship or being single
-States that we will only stay in our current relationship if we believe it is more rewarding than the alternative
DUCK (1994)
-The CLAT we adopt depends on state of current relationship
-If costs of current relationship outweigh the rewards, them alternatives become more appealing
