AO3

• Females

  • Especially choosy
• Study by Clark and Hatfield (1989)


  • Attractive male and female psychology students approached opposite-sex strangers on a college campus
  • Asked "Would you go on a date with me?"
  • Asked "Would you go back to me apartment with me?"
  • Asked "Would you have sex with me?"
• Females approached

  • 50% agreed to go on a date
  • 6% agreed to go back to his apartment
  • 0% agreed to have sex
• Males approached

  • 50% agreed to go on a date
  • 69% agreed to go back to her apartment
  • 75% agreed to have sex
• Females are less willing to consent to sex with strangers than males


  Supports the idea that females are more choosy
• Sexual selection theory


  Theory that suggests sex differences in partner preferences
• Buss (1989) study


  • Surveyed over 10,000 adults from 37 different cultures
  • Found female respondents placed greater value on resource-related characteristics (good financial prospects, ambition, industriousness)
  • Found male respondents placed more value on physical attractiveness and youth (indicators of fertility)
• Findings from Buss (1989) study


  Reflect the sex differences in partner preferences suggested by sexual selection theory
• The sex differences in partner preferences found in the Buss (1989) study can be applied across cultures
• One weakness is that research such as that conducted by Buss et al. (1989) can be criticised for lacking validity. This is because it gives us an indication of expressed preferences, rather than what actually happens in real life. For example, although males express a preference for physically attractive and young females, this doesn’t tell us whether they actually end up marrying physically attractive and young females. This suggests that much of the research used to support the relationship between sexual selection and partner preferences lacks ecological validity.
• Sex differences in partner preferences

  May stem from cultural traditions rather than sexual selection
• In an analysis of 37 cultures, it was demonstrated that women valued potential mates' access to resources far more in cultures where women's status and educational opportunities were limited</b>
• This suggests that we should not underestimate the role of social and economic factors in establishing mate preference patterns
• Self-disclosure


  Leads to better quality romantic relationships
• Evidence supporting self-disclosure leading to better quality romantic relationships

  • Sprecher & Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction
  • Those who used self-disclosure and believed that their partners did likewise were more satisfied and committed to their relationship
• Supportive findings such as these increase our confidence in the validity of the theory that self-disclosure is a factor that affects attraction in romantic relationships
• One strength is that research into self-disclosure can be used to support those who want to improve their own relationships. If those who are less skilled communicators, for example those who tend to limit communication to small talk, can learn to use self-disclosure then this could bring many benefits to their relationships in terms of deepening satisfaction and commitment. This real life application demonstrates the benefits of psychological insights on this topic. 
• One weakness is that much of the research into self-disclosure, such as that conducted by Sprecher & Hendrick (2004) is correlational. This is problematic, as it means that cause and effect cannot be established. Although it has been assumed that greater self-disclosure causes greater satisfaction and commitment, a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw. This is a weakness of research into self-disclosure. 
• One weakness is that the prediction that increasing the depth and breadth of self-disclosures will lead to a more satisfying and intimate romantic relationships is not true for all cultures
• Males and females in the USA (an individualistic culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than males and females in China (a collectivistic culture)
• Both these levels of self-disclosure are linked to greater relationship satisfaction in both of these cultures
• Self-disclosure is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on findings from individualistic cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures
• One weakness is that social exchange theory is culturally biased. Moghaddam (1998) suggested that the principles of social exchange theory only apply to individualistic cultures. In collectivitistic cultures, people often maintain relationships where costs far outweigh rewards due to cultural expectations. This suggests that social exchange theory does not provide a universal explanation of romantic relationships. 
• One weakness is that social exchange theory only applies to short-term relationships. In long-term relationships, people become much less concerned with give and take. In long-term relationships, couples are likely to experience periods where one partner experiences a loss (e.g. if the other partner falls ill) but will maintain their relationship through these difficult periods for emotional reasons. This suggests that social exchange theory cannot be generalised to explain all romantic relationships
• Many researchers disagree with the economic metaphor underlying social exchange theory. For example, Clark & Mills (2011) suggest that exchange relationships (such as relationships between colleagues) are based upon economics but communal relationships (such as romantic relationships) are marked by the giving and receiving of rewards without keeping score. This is a criticism of social exchange theory and suggests that it oversimplifies complex romantic relationships. 

   
• A problem for social exchange theory is the confusion of what constitutes a reward and a cost within a romantic relationship. Rewards and costs are subjective. For example, constant attention might be viewed by one person as a reward but by another person as a cost. In addition, what might be seen as a reward at one stage of a relationship might be perceived as a cost at another stage. This suggests that it is difficult to classify events in such simple terms as ‘rewards’ and ‘costs’ and challenges the view that romantic relationships operate in this way. 

   
• There is some evidence to support equity theory. For example, Utne et al. (1984) carried out a survey of 118 married couples. They found that couples who considered their relationship to be equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over-benefitting or under-benefitting. This research increases the validity of equity theory as a theory of romantic relationships. 

   
• Equity theory


  Assumes that the need for equity is a universal feature of romantic relationships across all cultures
• Equity theory


  May be culturally biased as it does not explain the behaviour of individuals from all cultures
• Aumer-Ryan et al. (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction
• Couples from an individualistic culture

  • Considered their relationship to be most satisfying when the relationship was equitable
• Partners in the collectivistic culture

  • Were most satisfied when they were over-benefitting their partner
• One weakness is that there is evidence that not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman et al. (1987) suggested that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. They describe some partners as ‘benevolents’, who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Others are ‘entitleds’ who believe they deserve to be over-benefitted and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty. This suggests that there are individual differences in the importance of equity. 
• Equity


  The importance of equity differs between genders
• Gender differences in the importance of equity

  • DeMaris et al. (2010) investigated whether marital inequity was associated with later marital disruption in 1500 couples
• The only index of inequity that was associated with marital disruption was a woman's sense of being under-benefitted
• Women's greater relationship focus

  May make them more sensitive to injustices and more likely to react negatively to being exploited
• Equity theory may be gender biased, as it does not explain the behaviour of both men and women
• There is research evidence to support Rusbult's investment model
• Research evidence


  • Le & Agnew (2003) reviewed 52 studies, which together included over 11,000 participants from 5 different cultures