Paper 3 Relationships

• sexual selection (non-random mating)


  The selection of traits that aren't necessarily good for survival fitness, but without them, you can't pass on your genes at all because you can't reproduce
• Anisogamy


  Refers to a difference in gamete size in males and females. Eggs large and costly, sperm small and cheap
• Buss Aim, procedure, findings and evaluation


  Aim = Support idea that men look for fertility and women look for support

  Procedure = Surveyed 10,000 adults in 33 countries and told them to rank 18 different characteristics from 1-13 and rate each from 0-3

  Findings = Females more importance on ambition, high intelligence and good finances (resources)

  Men more importance on physical attractiveness and looking young and fertile

  Evaluation = Variety of cultures, opportunity sampling, large sample, self report data, other factors influence
• Inter-sexual selection


  Male impress female in order to pass on genetics (mate for life)
• Inter-sexual selection = Fisher (sexy sons hypothesis)


  Female mates with an attractive male in order for her son to inherit the 'sexy' trait and mate and have offspring and so on
• Inter-sexual selection = Trivers (runaway process)


  - Females put more time and investment in so select genetically fit partner to provide resources

  - Female preference decide whether traits passed on (tall men attractive so more tall men)
• Inter-sexual selection AO3 = Clark and Hatfield


  Female choosiness appears in heterosexual relationships

  Woman went up to men and asked if they would sleep with her 75% men said yes. When man did the same no women said yes.
• Inter-sexual selection AO3 = Ignore social and cultural influences

  Women greater role in workplace means no longer dependent on men to provide for them.

  Bereczkei et al = social change for females mean no longer resource orientated

  Kasser and Sharma = when women opportunities limited they valued resources more
• Inter-sexual selection AO3 = Waynforth and Dunbar


  - Studied lonely heart ads in newspapers.

  - Women offered youth and physical attractiveness

  - Men offered resources and sought youth
• Inter-sexual selection AO3 = Waist to hip ratio

  - Devendra and Singh found males prefer ratio of 0.7 as it is a sign a woman is fertile but not pregnant
• Inter-sexual selection AO3


  - Reductionist (reduce to physical attraction don't consider love)

  - Deterministic (no choice, you will be with someone due to fertility)

  - Socially sensitive (negative stereotypes and don't include homosexual relationships)
• Intra-sexual selection


  Male-male competition for access to mates to be alpha
• Physical attraction importance


  Buss = more important to men but also to women in the short term important for relationship formation.
• Physical attraction matching hypothesis


  - Aim to find someone of a similar attractiveness to yourself

  - 2 hypothesis:

  Matched means you have a happy, enduring relationship

  The more socially desirable you are the more socially desirable of a partner you seek
• Physical attraction AO3 Walster


  - 752 students attend a dance to show their ideal match

  - However, they were actually randomly assigned a date

  - After 2 hours they were asked how much they liked their date, those who were physically attractive were liked the most

  - Men asked partner for further date no matter how attractive he was

  - Opposing evidence to original study
• Physical attraction AO3 Murstein


  - Correlational study with photos of actual and made up couples

  - Participants rate from 1-5

  - Real couples more similar than fake
• Physical attraction AO3 McKillip


  - Observe couples in bars

  - Match in all couples

  - More match the more committed they were
• Physical attraction AO3 Walster


  + high eco validity

  - unexpected results

  - Complex matching = no good looks use money and humour

  - Cultural differences = Family influence relationships fail to see role of culture (arranged marriage)

  - Matching unimportant = Online dating showed no evidence that decisions were driven by physical attraction
• Physical attraction = Halo effect


  Physical attractiveness stereotype

  More attractive the more smart, strong, kind and sociable you seem
• Physical attraction : Palmer and Peterson


  - Physically attractive people were seen to have more political knowledge and competence

  - View stayed same even after Ps knew they had no expertise
• Physical attraction : Wheeler and Rim


  - Halo effect in cultural dimension

  - If attractive then good points, but only in own culture

  - Canadian expect good looking person to be strong and assertive

  - Korean expect a good looking person to be sensitive and generous
• Self disclosure : Altman and Taylor


  2 elements to the idea of self disclosure (breadth and depth) as both increase partners become more committed
• Self disclosure : Penetration theory


  How relationships develop

  - in romantic partners it involves reciprocal exchange of information displays trust towards other person

  - as partners reveal more and more they penetrate further into eachothers lives
• Self disclosure : Breadth and Depth


  Breadth = weather, music, films, siblings, holidays

  Depth = Embarrassing, worries, ashamed things
• Self disclosure AO3 research support
• Self disclosure AO3 Real world application
• Self disclosure AO3 Cultural differences
• Self disclosure AO3 Duck
• Filter theory (kerckhoff and Davis 1962)


  - filter theory explains how romantic relationships form

  - field of available -> field of desirables
• Filter theory factors

  1. Social demography = age, location, social background (things in common)

  2. Similarity in attitudes = value of central importance, find similarities

  3. Complementarity = people with different needs like each other
• Filter theory = Kerchkoff and Davis study


  - Longitudinal study of 94 couples dating

  - each partner completed 2 questionnaires assessing degree to which they shared values and complementarity

  - 7 months after initial testing they completed another questionnaire assessing how close they felt to their partner

  - when couples divided into short term and long term they found short term similarity of attitudes and values most important, but in long term only complementarity predictive of how close each individuals were
• Filter theory AO3 cultural validity


  - Filter theory doesn't consider age culture and gender filter out different things

  - Filter theory is culture biased
• Filter theory AO3 Temporal validity

  - Outdated, theory created 50 years ago

  - Less transport and no internet, easier to be closer to each other now

  - Internet dating changed the beginning of relationships

  - Reduced importance of social demographic variables

  - May pursue relationship if outside of demographic
• Filter theory AO3 Direction of cause and effect


  - Theory assumes people are initially attracted because they are similar

  - Anderson et al = cohabiting couples became more similar over time

  - Davis and Rusbult = attitude alignment effect
• Filter theory AO3 George Levinger


  - studies fail to replicate original findings, social change over time, lacks validity
• Social exchange theory = Thibaut and Kelley


  - Economic theory = takes view that social relationships run in similar way to business

  - Minimise loss, maximise gain
• Social exchange theory = Homans


  - Economic decisions

  - Exchange resource with expectation we will earn 'profit'

  - The greater reward and lower the cost, the greater the profit
• Social exchange theory = Comparison level


  - Comparison level = standard by which other relationships are measured

  - Average level of rewards you are used to is minimum to expect

  - If RCR falls below CL, then relationship unsatisfying
• Social exchange theory = Comparison level for alternatives


  - Comparison level for alternatives = we weigh up potential increase in rewards from potential partner, minus costs in current relationship
• Social exchange theory = Blau


  - Interaction are expensive and take time energy and commitment

  - What we get out of relationship must exceed what we put in.