relationships

• sexual selection (Darwin)


  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
• human reproductive behaviour


  this refers to any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and thereby increase the survival chances of our genes. It includes the evolutionary mechanisms underlying our partner preferences, such as mate choice and mate competition
• anisogamy


  refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes)
• male gametes


  sperm 

  extremely small, highly mobile and created continuously in large numbers (doesn't require lots of energy to produce)

  • therefore no shortage of fertile males
• female gametes


  eggs/ova

  • relatively large, static and produced in intervals for a limited amount of time during fertile years (requiring a huge investment of energy)
  • fertile females are seen as a rare resource
• inter-sexual selection (choice)

  • quality over quantity 
  • one sex is very choosy in selecting a sexual partner based on particular preferences (determines the areas in which the other sex competes)
  • leads to the development of desirable traits (height) to attract members of the opposite sex 
  • Triver (1972) therefore the female's optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able and willing to provide
• intra-sexual selection (competition)

  • quantity over quality 
  • one sex competes with members of same-sex to access females 
  • the winner gets to pass on to his offspring the characteristics contributing to his victory
• dimorphism


  the obvious differences between males and females e.g larger males have an advantage and therefore more likely to mate
• research support for mate preference

  • research support for mate preferences related to anisogamy 
  • Buss (1989) surveyed over 10000 adults from 33 countries asked questions relating to age + attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference 
  • results showed female respondents placed greater value on resource-related characteristics whereas males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity. reflect sex differences (anisogamy and sexual selection theory). applicable across culture so preference is not as influenced by cultureculturesand
• supporting research(students approach asking to sleep with them)

  • research support for inter-sexual selection 
  • Clark and Hatfield (1989) psychology students were sent out across campus approaching students individually. question 'I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?'
  • 0% of females agreed to the request whereas 75% of males agreed
  • this supports the evolutionary theory that females are choosier than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners and that males have a different strategy to ensure reproductive success
• limitation of evolutionary theory

  • the evolutionary theory ignores that partner preference is also shaped by changing social norms of sexual behaviour
  • women are no longer dependent on men
  • Bereczei argued that this social change has consequences for women's mate preferences which may no longer be resource-oriented. Chang compared partner preferences in China over 25yrs and found some had changed others remained the same corresponding to the social changes at the time 
  • mate preference=combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. any theory that appears to account for both is limited
• strength of sexual selection

  • one strength of the theory is that 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 studied this in terms of waist-hip ratio 
  • what matters is the ratio of waist to hip size. up to. a point, males generally find any hip and waist sizes attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other is about 0.7 
  • this combination is attractive because it is an honest sign that a woman is fertile but not currently pregnant
• what are the factors affecting attraction

  • self-disclosure 
  • physical attractiveness 
  • filter theory
• social penetration theory (self-disclosure)

  • Altman and Taylor (1973): social penetration theory is focused on how relationships develop 
  • it is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone. it involves the reciprocal exchange of information between partners 
  • as more and more is disclosed the partners penetrate more deeply into each other's lives and gain a greater understanding of each other
• reciprocity and self-disclosure


  reis and shaver (1988) for a relationship to develop as well as an increase in breadth + depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure (similar to the attachment)

  • this leads to a balance in self-disclosure between both partners leading to feelings of intimacy and a more successful relationship
• A03 disclosure

  • disclosure from social penetration theory have been supported by research 
  • sprecher and hendrick studied dating couples and found a correlation between several measures of satisfaction + disclosure. people who used disclosure and those who believed their partners did likewise were more satisfied and committed 
  • Laurenceau found that disclosure and the perception of disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in married couples 
  • supporting research increases our confidence in the validity of the theory that disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
• supporting research for disclosure affecting attraction

  • there are a number of practical applications of disclosure research for people who want to improve their communication
  • Hass and Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationships 
  • if less skilled partners learn to use disclosure then this could bring several benefits to the relationships in terms of deepening satisfaction and commitment 
  • such real-life application demonstrates the value of psychological insights
• limitation of self disclosure affecting attraction

  • the assumption that increasing the depth + breadth of disclosure will lead to a more satisfying and intimate relationship is not true for all cultures 
  • Tang reviewed the research literature regarding sexual disclosure
  • they concluded that people in USA disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than people in China linking to the satisfaction in those cultures 
  • self-disclosure theory is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships based on the findings of Western cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures
• limitation of self disclosure affecting attraction

  • social penetration theory claims that romantic relationships become more intimate as self-disclosure deepens and broaden 
  • much of the self-disclosure research is correlational Sprecher and Hendrick
  • although it is usually assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw
  • discussions that lead to deep disclosures of intimate thoughts may not always be enough to rescue a relationship in fact they may even contribute to its breakdown
• why is physical attractiveness important

  from an evolutionary perspective, facial attractiveness may provide information about underlying health 

  • people with symmetrical faces are more often viewed as more attractive as their physical features are seen as signs of fertility and desirable genetics
• facial symmetry


  Shackelford and Larsen (1997) provide empirical evidence that facially attractive people may be physically healthier than unattractive people
• neotenous features


  baby faces are said to be particularly important for women's facial attractiveness - women with widely spaced eyes, small noses and chin have been judged to be the most attractive cross-culturally as they tend to elicit a nurturant response
• the halo effect


  what is beautiful is good (Dion et al 1972)

  • physical attractiveness stereotype: physical attractiveness matters because we have preconceived ideas about the personality and traits attractive people must have and they are almost universally positive
• the matching hypothesis


  Walster 1966

  • the matching hypothesis states that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness and therefore we have to make a realistic judgment about our value - we choose romantic partners who a similar physical attractiveness by making realistic judgements about our value
  • compromises may be made to avoid rejection so choosing a less attractive partner
• supporting research for the halo effect (ugly people are not politically correct)

  • there is empirical support for the halo effect 
  • Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people 
  • this has clear implications for democracy as there are dangers of politicians are physically attractive then they'll get more voters 
  • examples of the halo effect can be found in many areas of everyday life, confirming physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships
• limitation of physical attraction affecting attraction

  • there are individual differences in the importance people place on physical attractiveness 
  • Towhey (1979) asked pps how much they liked an individual based on a photograph+biographical information. PPs also completed the MACHO scale
  • found that pps who scored highly on the scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness
  • the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors which challenges the notion that it's a significant consideration in relationship formation for all potential partners
• research support for the matching hypothesis (reliability)

  • the original research study that attempted to confirm the matching hypothesis failed to do so (Walster)
  • however, it might be because the measurements of attractiveness were not as reliable as the raters only had a few seconds to judge attractiveness 
  • Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies. found a significant correlation in the rating of attractiveness between romantic partners
  • this supports the matching hypothesis and has a more valid methodology as the researchers looked at actual partners which is more realistic
• limitation of matching hypothesis

  • researcher contradicting the matching hypothesis comes from Taylor
  • they studied popular dating sites.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 partners who were more physically attractive than them. It seems they did not consider their level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date 
  • this suggests pps did not consider their level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date
• strength of physical attraction affecting attraction

  • research shows that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures 
  • Cunningham found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high eyebrows were rated highly attractive by White, Hispanic and Asian males 
  • Wheeler and Kim found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy compared to other people who are mature and friendly 
  • it seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures
• Filter theory (background info)

  Kerchoff and Davis (1962)

  All the romantic partners potentially available to us are reduced by a series of filters to a limited collection of people 

  compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term relationships (>18 months)

  • field of availables (entire) and desirables (narrow)
• filter theory

  • social demographic
  • similarity of attitudes 
  • complementary filter
• social demographic (1st filter)


  geographical, social, education, ethics and religion 

  • accessibility of potential partner (similarity to partner)
  • ends up homogamy so being with someone who is similar to you socially and culturally
• similarity of attitudes (2nd filter)

  sharing similar beliefs and attitudes promotes self-disclosure 

  Byne (1997) similarity increases attention = law of attraction. if this isn't present the relationship will fizzle out 

  • Bahns (2016) there are several reasons why similarity is so important but crucially helps make social situations more comfortable. it pays to interact with a partner who shares your attitudes, goals and values because the relationship runs smoother reducing the likelihood of unpleasant conflict
• complementary filter (3rd filter)

  meeting each other's needs which is the most important for long-term couples e.g. making the partner laugh and the partner enjoys being made to laugh 

  • this gives the feeling of being whole when with the other person
• limitation of filter theory (failure to replicate)

  • many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of the filter theory 
  • Kerchoff and Davis chose an 18 month cutoff point to distinguish between short and longterm relationships 
  • Levinger said that there had been social changes over time. the 18 months cut off between short and long-term relationships were arbitrary and assumed therefore difficult to replicate
  • this suggests that this theory cannot be applied to everyone specifically homosexual relationships and different cultures lacking generalisability
• limitation of filter theory (people become similar over time)

  • this theory suggests people are attracted to each other because they are similar but this may be because they've become similar over time
  • Anderson et al (2003) conducted a longitudinal study and found emotional convergence i.e. cohabiting partners became more similar in emotional responses over time
  • this suggests that we are with someone because we are similar however this can be due to time together
  • these findings are not predicted by filter theory
• limitation of filter theory (outdated)

  • online dating has influenced the temporal validity of the filter theory 
  • online dating has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables as location does not influence the ability to meet people through the rise of apps like Tinder
  • furthermore, online dating means we are more likely to pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits 
  • this suggests that this theory may need some revision as it's outdated in terms of the new ways relationships form
• strength of filter theory (face validity - similarities in attitude in early stages)

  • a strength of filter theory is that it has face validity 
  • Winch (1958) provides supporting evidence that similarities in personality and attitudes between partners in the early stages of relationships 
  • this makes sense and agrees with most people's experience of romantic relationships 
  • this echos the matching hypothesis as partners and complimentary of needs more important according to Winch
• social exchange theory

  • thibaut and kelley (1959)
  • this theory holds that all social exchanges are a series of exchanges; individuals attempt to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. in our society, people exchange resources with the expectation that they will earn a 'profit'. 
  • rewards minus the costs equal the outcome therefore the commitment to a relationship is dependent on the profitability of the outcome
• examples of costs and rewards

  costs - damage to health and financial 

  rewards - friendship and affection