RELATIONSHIPS

• What is the definition of sexual selection?

  An evolutionary explanation of partner preference.

  
  

  Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over time.
• What is the power of sexual selection?

  Has a major impact on future generations.

  
  

  Those who manage to pass on genes to their children, who then pass on these genes to their children and so on.

  
  

  Those who don't successfully mate never get to pass on their genes.
• What is Inter-sexual selection?

  * This is the preferred strategy of the female-quality over quantity

  
  

  . This refers to the preferences of one sex for members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities

  
  

  .Members of the opposite sex who possess these characteristics (e.g. status, resources) will gain a mating advantage

  
  

  .It usually refers to females choosing a male
• What is Intra-sexual selection?

  *This is the preferred strategy of the male-quantity over quality

  
  

  .This refers to the competition between members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex

  
  

  .In most cases this means males fighting with each other for access to females

  
  

  .Whatever characteristic leads to success in the same sex contest (e.g. big horns, strength) becomes widely spread in the gene pool
• Why do females prefer quality over quantity?

  Females make a greater investment in offspring than men- e.g. use an egg ( limited time to use them), carrying the child, breastfeeding, childbirth

  
  

  Women are picky as want best genes from partner to reproduce with because of the high costs of offspring investment.
• Why do males prefer quantity over quality?

  Males want to spread their genes and reproduce as much as possible
• What is Buss' study in the nature of sexual selection?

  What do males and females look for in a partner?

  
  

  Procedure- the study involved over 10,000 people from 33 different cultures. Pt.'s were surveyed on partner preferences.

  
  

  Findings

  
  

  Females valued resource-related characteristics more than males (e.g. good financial prospects)

  
  

  Males valued reproductive capacity (e.g. good looks and youth)

  
  

  This supports the ideas of differences in sexual selection-

  
  

  Women are choosier and want resources from men to support her and her child after using one of her vital eggs.

  
  

  Men want younger and more fertile women so they can spread their gene pool (unlimited sperm)
• What is the evaluation of sexual selection?

  + Victor Johnston (2004)

  -used a computer programme called Faceprints to discover the importance of symmetry in attractiveness

  
  

  .showed pt.'s facial images and asked to rate them on a beauty scale

  .then, the pictures with the highest ratings are merged together and the less attractive photographs taken out

  .each trial ends when a viewer rates the composite a perfect 10

  All the perfect 10s were super symmetric

  
  

  +Support for inter-sexual selection

  -Clark and Hatfield (1989)-females are choosier

  .male and female psychology students approached people on campus asking questions including:

  'I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you:

  a) come over to my apartment tonight?

  b) go to bed with me tonight

  Results

  Females

  a-6%

  b-0%

  
  

  Males

  a-69%

  b-75%

  
  

  In line with evolutionary theory females don't want to engage in casual sex and are choosier than males when it comes to selecting a sexual partner as reproduction with poor genes can be costly

  
  

  + Waist to hip ratio

  .Preference for body shape that signals fertility

  .Devendra Singh (1993,2002) male preference not so much for body size but for waist-hip ratio (WHR) up to a point, males generally find any hip sizes attractive so long as ratio of one to another is 0.7

  .Acts as an 'honest signal' (as hard to fake) that a woman is fertile but currently not pregnant

  
  

  -Sexual selection theory is too simplistic

  .Buss and Schmitt (2016) claim sexual selection theory is too simple as it suggests 1 strategy is adaptive for all females

  .Instead, both have similar preferences when seeking a long term relationship (loyalty, love, kindness etc)

  .This is a more complex evolutionary view it takes account of the context of reproductive behaviour

  
  

  -Ignores social and cultural influences

  .Partner preferences have been impacted over time by changing social norms and cultural practices

  .These have occurred too fast to be down to evolution

  .Wider availability of contraception & changing roles in the workplace mean women's partner prefs are no longer resource orientated

  .This suggests that partner prefs today are likely to be down to both evolutionary & cultural factors which a theory such as this one is limited as fails to explain both

  
  

  -Sexual selection and
• Discuss the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour (16 marks)


  A01-explain what sexual selection is and how it is designed to pass on genes

  A01-explain the evolutionairy explanations predictions

  A01-Explain inter-and intra selection and why they make sense as per evolutionairy explanation

  A01-explain Buss cross cultural research and findings

  A03-link back to question-Buss research supports

  A03-eval study

  A01-describe Clark and Hatfield study and findings

  A03-link back to question supports evolutionairy explanation

  A01-describe waist to hip ratio study

  A03- link back to question

  A03-ignores culture and social influences

  A03-sexual selection theory is too simple

  A03-sexual selection and homosexuality
• FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTION

  What is physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?

  .Research has found men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate. Physical appearance is an important cue to a woman's health and hence her fertility/reproductive value

  .Women rely on physical attractiveness for short-term relationships but less important for long term
• What is the Halo effect as a factor affecting attraction?


  .Physical attractiveness may also matter because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive

  
  

  .This is the physical attractiveness stereotype, a widely accepted view of attractive people summed up in the phrase 'beautiful is good'

  
  

  .Dion et al-found physically attracted people associated with positive characteristics compared to unattractive people.

  Makes good looking people seem more attractive.

  
  

  Halo effect- physical attractiveness can effect our judgements on someones personality
• What is symmetry as a factor affecting attraction?

  Shackleford and Lawson (1997)

  .found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive

  .the symmetry is a signal of genetic fitness that cannot be faked

  .the genes linked to symmetry will be passed on

  .your children will then be seen as attractive and so be selected to reproduce with
• What is the definition of the matching hypothesis?

  Predicts people aspire to be in a romantic relationship with a partner who has a level of social desirability that matches their own.
• What is the matching hypothesis?

  .proposed by walster and walster claims we seek out a partner whose social desirability approximately equals own

  
  

  .therefore when choosing a partner individual must assess their own value in eyes of potential romantic partner and select candidates most likely to be attractive to them

  
  

  .theoretically we would go for most socially desirable mates we opt for partners of similar level to maximise chance of successful outcome

  
  

  .match based on same level of physical attractiveness
• What is the Walster et al- the computer dance study? (-ve evaluation)


  . Advertised a computer dance for new students at Minnesota uni

  
  

  .177 makes and 170 females randomly selected to take part

  
  

  .4 student accomplices rated them for physical attractiveness

  
  

  .pts asked to complete questionnaire and told their answer would be used to allocate partners for dance

  
  

  .pairing was actually random

  
  

  .during the break in the dance pts completed questionnaire about their date and a follow up one done 6 months later

  
  

  -findings: matching hypothesis was not supported: high attraction was seen as best

  -the pts response more positively to those rated attractive than ones rated same level as them
• What was Mursteins evidence that supported the matching hypothesis? (+ve evaluation)

  . Photos of 197 couples in various statuses of relationships ( from casually dating to married)

  
  

  . Each person photographed separately judges didn't know which photos went together within romantic partnerships

  
  

  . Ratings from judges supported matching hypothesis- definite tendency for engaged or married couples to be rated similarly
• What is the evaluation for factors affecting attraction?

  + support for the Halo effect

  * palmer and Peterson (2012)

  . Found physically attractive people rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people

  . Halo effect so powerful persisted even when pts knew knowledgeable people had no particular expertise

  . Supports Halo effect- confirming physical attractiveness is an important factor in initial formation of relationships

  
  

  - individual differences

  . Not everyone considers physical attractiveness important

  *touhey

  . Found people with non sexist attitudes un influenced by physical attractiveness when judging likability of potential partners

  . This shows that the impact of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors

  . Goes agains the MH as suggests we are not all interested in physical attractiveness

  
  

  - more contradictory research

  * Taylor et al

  . Found online daters sought dates with partners more attractive than themselves and did not consider own levels of attractiveness

  . Research involved actual dating choices but didn't support MH

  . May be MH no longer explains preferences related to physical attraction in useful way

  
  

  - complex matching

  * sprencher and Hatfield

  . People come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics

  . Physical attractiveness is only one

  . Person may compensate for lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities ( charming personality, kindness, status and money)

  . Refers to complex matching

  . People are able to attract partners more physically attractive than them by offering compensatory assets
• FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTION

  What is self disclosure?

  Self disclosure is when a person reveals intimate information about themselves to another person
• What is self disclosure?


  sharing personal information at opportune moment to convey understanding or to role model behavior
• What is the social penetration theory?

  -self disclosure gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone

  
  

  - revealing personal info is sign of trust

  
  

  - partner then has to reciprocate and reveal personal information

  
  

  - as they increasingly disclose more information romantic partners penetrate more deeply into each others lives and gain greater understanding of each other

  
  

  - breadth and depth important like onion

  
  

  - breadth is narrow at start as too much info off putting

  
  

  - as relationship develops more layers revealed and increase more intimate info (depth)

  
  

  - as both breadth and depth increases romantic partners become more committed to one another

  
  

  - low risk information revealed early on in relationship and high risk comes out as relationship progresses

  
  

  -self disclosure given and recurved
• What is the research support about self-disclosure and social penetration theory?

  *Sprencher & Hendrick (2004)

  . Studied heterosexual dating couples

  . Found strong correlation between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure

  - men and women who used self disclosure and believe their partners also disclosed were more satisfied and committed in relationship

  - supports reciprocated self disclosure as being key to committed relationships
• What are the norms of self disclosure?

  . People should engage in moderate personal level of self disclosure in early stages of relationship

  . Derlega & Gerzelak suggest it should neither be so personal that the disclosed appears indiscriminate for disclosing them to a relative stranger, nor so impersonal that the listener is unable to know the discloser better as a result

  . Norm of reciprocity governs much of social behaviour ( expect what you give to be returned in one form of another)

  . More disclosure given= more expected in return
• What are the other studies and evaluation info factors affecting attraction?

  + real life application

  * hass and Stafford

  . Found 57% of day men and women reported open and honest self disclosure was a maintenance strategy

  . Couples who use small talk can be encouraged to increase self disclosure in order to deepen relationship

  . Highlights importance of self disclosure and suggests the theory can be used to support people having relationship problems

  
  

  - sprencher and Hendricks study found strong positive correlations but doesn't mean self disclosure causes relationships to be satisfying

  . May be those satisfied that disclosure more

  . Cannot establish cause and effect so validity of theory reduced

  
  

  - one limitation is the theory does not apply to all cultures

  *Tang et al (2013)

  . Concluded people in the US (individualist culture) self disclosed significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than people in China

  . Even though the level of disclosure was lower in China relationship satisfaction no different that US

  . Therefore social penetration theory/ ideas of self disclosure limited explanation of romantic relationship as not generalised to all cultures

  
  

  - self disclosure and breakdown

  . Social penetration theory shows self disclosure is associated with satisfaction

  . However when relationships break down partners often disclosed more often and more deeply to increase satisfaction but this often doesn't save relationships (Duck 2007)

  . This challenge gets social penetration theory because deeper self disclosure does not lead to a deeper relationship and may contribute to breakup
• FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTION

  What is the definition of the filter theory?

  . First we consider the field of available (pool of potential partners who are accessible to us)

  . From this we select the field of desirable via 3 filters

  . Kerckhoff & Davis compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in short term relationship (-18 months) and long term relationships and devised filter theory ri explain how romantic relationships form and develop
• What are the 3 filters of the filter theory?

  SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY

  (1st level of filter)

  . Refers to wide range of factors which influence chances of meeting partners in first place. They include:

  1. Geographical location

  2. Social class

  3. Level of education

  4. Ethnic group

  5. Religion

  . More likely to meet people physically close to you who share some demographic characteristics

  . More likely to feel similar to these people and more at ease with them so find them more attractive

  . Stage of filtering more to do with social than individual characteristics

  
  

  SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES

  (2nd level of filter)

  . 2nd filter involves agreement on basic values . Important for couples who've been together less than 18 months

  . In early stages of relationship agreeing on basic values promotes better communication and self disclosure

  . Byrne found similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction

  . Where similarity doesn't exist it is found relationship fades after a few dates

  
  

  COMPLEMENTARY

  (3rd level of filter)

  . Partners complement each other when they have traits other one lack e.g. one partner enjoys making the other laugh and other partner enjoys laughing

  . Kerchief and davis found the need for complementarity was more important for long term couples

  . Complementarity is attractive as it gives two romantic partners feeling that together they form a whole which adds depth to relationships and makes it more likely to flourish
• What is the evaluation of the filter theory?

  + Kerckhoff and Davis research

  . 94 dating couples completed questionnaires measure similarity of attitude values complementarity of needs and relationship closeness

  . Closeness was linked to similarity of values for partners together for less than 18 months (short term relationships)

  . Complementarity of needs was more important in longer relationships

  . Evidence that similarity is important in early stages of relationship but complimentary become important later

  
  

  - direction of cause and effect

  Filter theory suggest people initially attracted because of similarity but evidence this direction of causality is wrong

  * Anderson et al

  . Found cohabiting partners experience emotional convergence becoming more similar over time

  * Davis and rusbult

  . Suggests attitude alignment also takes place ( partner attitudes change to become similar)

  These pieces of research suggest similarities are effect of relationship not cause

  
  

  - 1 limitation is that complimentary does NOT always predict satisfaction

  . Filter theory predicts high levels of satisfaction in a relationship where there is complimentary eg 1 partner needs to be submissive and 1 dominant

  . Markey and markey found long term lesbian romantic partners most satisfied when both partners equally dominant

  . Therefore SIMILARITY of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long term satisfaction going against theory
• THEORIES OF ROMANTIC

  What is the definition of social exchange theory (SET)?

  -the likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get out of the relationship compared to what they put in

  -and how the relationship measures up to what they expect and what they might achieve in a different relationship
• What is SET?

  *Thibaut & Kelley

  -proposed relationships could be explained in terms of economics, exchange for goods

  -satisfaction is judged in terms of profit

  -partners motivated to minimise costs and maximise rewards

  -profitable relationships continue and unprofitable relationships fail

  -economic theory, relationships run like a business haggling and negotiating to get best deal

  -based on principles of operant conditioning, we form and maintain relationships because they're rewarding

  -runs like balance sheet
• What are the 2 ways we measure the profit of a romantic relationship?

  .Comparison level (CL)

  -the amount of reward you believe you deserve to get

  -develops from experiences of previous relationships and social norms

  -comparison made between rewards and costs of current relationship and what we've been used to/expect

  -if it compares favourably, motivated to stay in relationship

  
  

  .Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

  -we consider if we might gain more rewards and fewer costs in different relationship/no relationship

  -stay despite alternatives if we consider current relationship more rewarding

  -if current relationship satisfying alternatives unnoticed
• What are the 4 stages of relationship development in SET?

  .Sampling stage

  -Exploring rewards and costs by experimenting in our relationships and observing others

  
  

  .Bargaining stage

  -Occurs at start of a relationship where romantic partners negotiate around costs and rewards

  
  

  .Commitment stage

  -relationship becomes more stable. Costs reduce and rewards increase.

  
  

  .Institutionalisation stage

  -Partners become settled because the norms of the relationship are established.
• What is the evaluation of SET?

  +Research to support SET

  *Kurdeck

  .interviewed both hetereosexual and homosexual couples

  .committed partners perceived they had most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as unattractive

  .findings confirm theory of SET supporting validity of theory in gay/lesbian and heterosexual couples

  
  

  +Real-world application-Relationship therapy

  *Gottman & Levenson

  .successful marriages ratio of positive exchanges around 5:1 but in unsuccessful around 1:1 or less

  .integrated couples behavioural therapy can be used to increase positive exchanges and decrease negative exchanges

  .IBCT helps partners break negative patterns of behaviour causing problems making them happier

  
  

  -Inappropriate assumptions underlying SET

  Many researchers do not accept the economic metaphor underlying SET

  *Clark And Mills

  .SET assumes all relationships based on costs,rewards,profit and loss,constant monitoring of satisfaction

  .Clark and Mills argue romantic relationships are not exchanged based,partners don't keep score

  .Suggests quite a few relationships may not be exchange based and reduces validity of theory

  .SET may not provide a suitable explanation for all types of relationships

  
  

  -does not consider equity/fairness in relationships

  .studies into SET ignore role of equity

  .what matters in a relationship is not the balance of costs and rewards but partners perception this is fair

  .therefore SET is a limited explanation as cannot account for a significant proportion of research findings that equity is important

  
  

  -SET concepts are too vague

  .real world costs/benefits are subjective and hard to define e.g. having your partners loyalty not rewarding for everyone

  .comparison levels problematic, unclear what values of CL and Clalt need to be before individuals are dissatisfied

  -SET difficult to test in valid way
• THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

  What is the equity theory?

  .In relationships, people try to maximise their rewards and minimise negative experiences

  *The distribution of rewards is negotiated to ensure fairness. This is achieved through trade-offs or compensations

  *Unfair relationships produce dissatisfaction. The greater the unfairness, the greater the dissatisfaction

  *If the 'loser' in this unfairness feels they can restore equity they may be motivated to save the relationship. The greater the degree of inequity the loser led wives, the greater will be the effort to restore it

  Fairness (equity) is the key here- and we may compare our relationship to others to see if it is fair

  
  

  . Under benefitting and over benefiting cab lead to dissatisfaction

  - the under benefitted partner is likely to be the least satisfied and their feelings may be evident in anger and resentment

  - the over benefitted partner may feel less dissatisfied but still likely to feel discomfort and shame

  
  

  . Two individuals can put in variable amounts and still maintain equity

  - This is because a person hold subjective views on the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and their partner

  - If we fear inequity in our relationship we may try and change our input and outputs to restore equity

  - It's not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matter- it's the ratio of the two to each other
• What are the ways you can deal with inequity?

  1. Restoration of actual equity

  - Individuals can restore equity by voluntarily setting things right or by urging their partner to do so

  
  

  2. Restoration of psychological equity

  - Couples in inequitable relationships can distort reality and convince themselves that things are perfectly fair just the way they are

  
  

  3. If couples are unable to restore equity in their relationship, they can leave if

  - Thus can be physically (I.e. divorce) or emotionally (I.e bo longer have feelings for their partner)
• What is the evaluation of the equity theory?


  +Mary Utne et al (1984)

  . Equity survey of 118 recently married couples who had been together more than 2 years before marrying

  . Those who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over or under benefitting

  . Confirms central prediction of equity theory, increasing ET's validity as an explanation of romantic relationships

  
  

  + Stafford and Canary (2006)

  . Interested in how equity and satisfaction predicted the use of maintenance strategies typically used in marriage

  . Asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction

  . Findings:

  . Satisfaction was highest for spouses who perceived their relationship to be equitable

  . The relationship between equity and marital happiness appeared to be complementary

  . Spouses who were treated equitable tended to be happier and so were more likely to engage in behaviours that contributed to their spouses sense of equity and happiness

  
  

  - Equity theory not valid in all cultures

  . Couples from individualist cultures (USA) considered their relationship to be more satisfying when it was equitable, whereas partners in the collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were over benefiting

  . This was true for both men and women

  . This suggests that equity theory's claim that equity is a universal need in relationships is not true

  . The theory is therefore limited as it cannot account for cultural differences

  
  

  - Equity may not apply to all relationships

  . Clark and Mills (2011)

  . Suggested a need to distinguish between types of relationship-romantic and business

  . Studies show that equity does play a central role in some relationships e.g. casual friendships but there is limited support for its importance in others

  . There is limited support for equity theory in romantic relationships and it may be better at explaining other forms of relationships

  
  

  - Individual differences

  . Not all partners are concerned about achieving equity

  . Huseman et al (1987)

  . Suggests that not all partners are concerned about equity

  . Benevolents are happy to contribute more than they get (under benefiting)

  . Entitleds believe they deserve to be over benefited and accept it without feeling
• THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

  What is the definition of Rusbult's investment model?

  Satisfaction, Alternatives, Investments—> Commitment level—< Future Stay or leave decision

  
  

  . An explanation of relationship stability that emphasises the importance of 3 factors (satisfaction, investment size & quality of alternative) in determining relationship commitment, which in turn predicts relationship stability
• What is Rusbult's investment model?

  . Rusbult's investment model was developed as a way of understanding why people persist in some relationships and not others.

  . Relationships persist not just because of the positive qualities that attract one person to another ( their satisfaction with that relationship), but also because of the ties that bind partners to each other ( their investments) and the absence of a better option (lack of alternatives).

  . These 3 factors provide an explanation that can predict the chances of someone being committed to the relationship they are currently in
• What is the definition of commitment?

  .The likelihood that an individual will persist with their current relationship

  .It is a product of high satisfaction and investment in the relationship and low quality of alternatives.
• What is the definition of investment?


  .Anything an ind. puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it.
• What is the definition quality/comparison with alternatives?

  .We may continue this relationship because there are no better options/alternatives
• What is the definition of satisfaction?


  .If outcomes surpass the comparison level ind's are satisfied, if not they are dissatisfied.