Relationships

• What is sexual selection? An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
• What is human reproductive behaviour? Any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and thereby increase the survival chances of our genes.
• What is Anisogamy? Differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
• What is specific about male gametes (sperm) ? - A lot produced constantly

  - Extremely small, highly mobile

  - Can live inside a female for up to a week
• What is specific about female gametes (eggs) ? - We can't produce eggs

  - We are born with that amount

  - Relatively large

  - Requires huge investment of energy
• What is inter-sexual selection? Quality over quantity

  One sex is very choosy in selecting a sexual partner based on particular preferences

  Leads to development of traits
• What did Trivers (1972) say about inter-sexual selection? Therefore the female's optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide resources.
• What is intra-sexual selection? Quantity over quality

  Males will compete with other males for access to females. The 'winner' gets to pass on to his offspring the characteristics that contributed to his victory.
• What is dimorphism? The obvious difference between males and females
• What research support is there for mate preference related anisogamy? Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults from 33 countries and asked questions relating to age and variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference. Results showed females placed greater value on resource related characteristics(add examples) but males prefer reproductive capacity, e.g. younger mates. These findings reflect sex differences in mate strategies due to anisogamy and predictions about partner preference derived from sexual selection theory. Furthermore, these findings can be applied across vastly different cultures, reflecting fundamental human preferences which are not entirely dependent upon cultural differences.
• What research support is there for inter-sexual selection? Clark and Hatfield (1989) showed that female pickiness is a reality of heterosexual relationships. They approached other students individually with the question 'I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you come to bed with me tonight?'. The researchers found that not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of the males did immediately. This supports the evolutionary theory because it suggests that females are pickier than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners and that males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
• What is a weakness of evolutionary theory? It ignores the fact that all partner preference is also shaped by changing social norms. E.g. woman's greater role in the workplace means that they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them . Bereczei et al (1997) argued that this social change has consequences for women's mate preferences, which may no longer be resource oriented. Chang et al (2011) compared partner preferences in china over 25 years and found that some had changed but others remained the same, corresponding with the huge social changes at that time. Mate preferences appears to be a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. Any theory that appears to account for both is limited.
• What is a strength of evolutionary theory? It makes a number of partner predictions that can be tested empirically. One prediction is that males will show a preference for a female body shape that signals fertility. Singh (1993,2002) studied this in terms of waist-hip ratio (WHR). What matters in male preference is not necessarily female body size but the ratio of waist to hip size. Up to a point, males generally find any hip and waist sizes attractive so long as the ratio of one to another is about 0.7. This combination of wider hips and narrower waist is attractive because it is an 'honest signal' that a woman is fertile but not currently pregnant. - link to intra-sexual
• What is self-disclosure? the act of sharing personal information with another
• What is the social penetration theory? (Altman and Taylor 1973): The gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone. Involves the reciprocal exchange of information between partners. As more and more is disclosed, the partners 'penetrate' more deeply into each others lives and gain a greater understanding of each other.
• How can the metaphor of an onion be used to describe the breadth and depth of self-disclosure? As both breadth and depth increase, romantic partners become more committed to each other. What we reveal on the surface, the outer layers of an onion, is breadth - low risk information we would reveal to anyone. Narrow, many topics are off limits. However, as a relationship develops, self disclosure becomes deeper, removing more layers to reveal our true selves. Eventually we are prepared to reveal intimate , high risk information. E.g. painful memories and experiences.
• What do Reis and Shaver (1988) say that there needs to be, for relationship to develop? As well as an increase in breadth and depth, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure. You hope your partner will respond in a way which is rewarding/understanding, and will also share their own disclosure with you. Leads to a balance of self-disclosure between partners which leads to increased feelings of intimacy, a more successful relationship.
• What supporting research is there for the predictions of self-disclosure derived from social penetration theory? Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners. A later study by Sprecher et al (2013) found that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose. Furthermore, Laurenceau et al (2005) found self-disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples. Supporting research increases our confidence in the validity of the theory that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
• What practical applications are there for self-disclosure research? Hass and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationship. If less skilled partners, for example, those who tend to limit communication to 'small talk', can learn to use self-disclosure then this could bring several benefits to the relationships in terms of deepening satisfaction and commitment. This can help people improve communication in their relationships and demonstrates the value of psychological insights.
• How are there cultural differences in the breadth and depth theory? Tang et al (2013) reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure. They concluded that men and women in the US (an individualist culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than men and women in China (a collectivist culture). But there is no difference in satisfaction levels self-disclosure theory is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on the findings of Western (individualist) cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures.
• What did Shackelford and Larsen (1997) find about facial symmetry? People with more symmetrical faces are rated more attractive. This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness. (from an evolutionary perspective, facial attractiveness may provide information about underlying health)
• What are neotenous features? Baby face - large widely spaced eyes, small nose and chin. Said to be particularly important for women's facial attractiveness. Judged to be the most attractive cross-culturally, as they tend to elicit a natural response.
• What is the halo effect? Physically attractive people are perceived to have positive personality traits. Positive body language - more attractive.

  ''what is beautiful is good'' (dion et al 1972).
• What is the matching hypothesis (Walster, 1966)? People choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other. To do this we make a realistic judgement about our own 'value' to a potential partner.
• What empirical support is there for the halo effect? Palmer and Peterson (2012) found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This has clear implications for democracy, there are dangers that politicians may be judged as suitable for office merely because they are judged as physically attractive by enough voters. Examples of the halo effect can be found in many areas of every day life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships, romantic and platonic.
• What individual differences are there in the importance people place on physical attractiveness? Towhey (1979) asked male and female pps how much they liked an individual based on a photograph and some biological information. Pps also completed the MACHO scale (which measures sexist attitudes and behaviours ). Towhey found that the pps who scored highly on the scale were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability. Low scores were less sensitive to this influence. This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors, which challenges the notion that it is a significant consideration in relationship formation for all.
• What research support is there for the matching hypothesis? The original research study that tried to confirm the matching hypothesis failed to do so. However, this might have been because the measurement of attractiveness was not as reliable as the raters who had to judge the attractiveness of pps only had a few seconds to do so. However, Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. This supports the matching hypothesis and arguably has a more valid methodology as researchers looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic approach.
• What research is there contradicting the matching hypothesis? Taylor et al (2011) studied the activity logs of popular dating sites (e.g. tinder). This was a real-life test of the matching hypothesis because it measured actual date choice and not just preference. Online daters wanted to date potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. This suggests pps did not consider their own level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date.
• What is the filter theory? (Kerchoff & Davis, 1962): States that a series of different factors progressively limits the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities.
• What are the three filters of the filter theory? Social demographic, similarity of attitudes and complementary filter.
• What is the social demographic filter? Geography, social, education, religion, etc. Accessibility of a potential partner - you are more likely to want someone who is similar to you socially and culturally. The outcome is homogamy.
• What is the similarity of attitudes filter? Sharing similar beliefs and attitudes promotes self-disclosure. Byrne (1997) : similarity increases attraction, if this isn't present then relationships will 'fizzle out'.

  Bahns et al (2016) : Similarity makes social situations more comfortable. Makes the relationship run more smoothly if you share attitudes and goals.
• What is the complementary filter? Meeting each other's needs, which is the most important for long-term couples (over 18 months). Feeling whole when you're with the other person.
• What is you're field of availables? You're entire set of potential partners.
• What is you're field of desirables? A more narrow range of desirable potential partners.
• What is a weakness of Kerchoff and Davis' 18 month cut off? Many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed that basis of the filter theory. Kerchoff and Davis chose an 18 month cut-off-point to distinguish between short-term and long-term relationships. Levinger (1974) pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory. He puts this down to social changes over time and also the difficulties in defining the depth of relationship. K+D assumed longer relationships were deeper. This highlights the problems in applying filter theory even to other heterosexual couples in the individualist culture, never mind to homosexual partners or people in other cultures.
• What evidence is there that the direction of causality in the filter theory is wrong? Filter theory suggests that people are initially attracted to each other because they're similar, but there is evidence to suggest that couples become similar over time. Anderson et al (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon called emotional convergence. Furthermore, Davis and Rusbult (2001) discovered an attitude alignment effect in longer-term relationships. Romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each other's, again suggesting that similarity is an effect of initial attraction. These findings are not predicted by filter theory.
• How does filter theory lack temporal validity? The rise of online dating in recent years has changed beyond recognition the process of beginning a romantic relationship. Technology such as the internet and mobile apps (e.g. tinder) have made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we might well pursue a date with someone outside our usual demographic limits that would have applied 30 years ago. It has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables e.g. social and geography (zoom dates). This suggests that the filter theory lacks temporal validity as it isn't applicable across time periods.
• What is the Social Exchange theory? (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959): individuals attempt to maximise their reward and minimise their costs (judge in terms of profit).
• What are some examples of costs in the SET? - Mental and physical health (abuse)

  - Time and money