Relationships

paper 3

Sexual selection

The evolutionary explanation of partner preference.

Certain features would have given our ancestors an adaptive advantage, meaning they were more likely to find a mate and reproduce to pass on their genes.

Anisogamy

The differences between male and female sex cells.

• Male gametes = small, highly mobile, created continuously in large numbers from puberty to old age and do not require much energy to produce.

• Female gametes = larger, static, produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years and require vast amounts of energy.

Inter-sexual selection

FEMALE - quality over quantity

Females have a greater investment in terms of energy and rarity requirement but also in times of timer, commitment and personal resources. Consequences of choosing the wrong partner for a female is a lot more serious for a female.

Therefore a fit and healthy male, who is willing to provide resources is desirable.
‘sexy son hypothesis’ physical traits eg. tall, are chosen to reproduce so their male offspring will have this trait and female offspring will also like tall partners.

Intra-sexual selection

MALE - quantity over quality

Competition between males to be able to mate with a female. The winner gets to pass on his genes to his offspring.

This gives rise to dimorphism between males and females, males are larger due to sexual competition that does not occur with women.

Anisogamy suggests that due to the low effort to produce sperm and high abundance of sperm, that the male strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible - it is the women left having to care for the baby. Behavioural consequence of this is that males have a preference for youth - certain facial features and signs of fertility in body shape.

Evaluations of Sexual selection

(+) Research support from Buss
- Survey on 10,000 adults from 33 countries on important attributes for partner preference
- He found females placed greater importance on recourse-related to characteristics eg. financial prospects, ambition etc compared to males
- Males valued reproductive capacity in terms of good looks, chastity and preferred younger mates.

(-) Low temporal validity
- Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer financially dependent on males, this will influence females to be less recourse focused when choosing a mate
- Mate preferences are a combination of evolutionary and cultural/social influences

(-) The theory is deterministic
- the theory suggests that relationships are solely based on reproduction and ignores the emotional factors and the role of individual choice
- The theory does not account for homosexual relationships where choice of a partner is not based on reproductive success, not generalisable.

The Halo Effect - physical attractiveness

The idea that people who are judged to be attractive are typically perceived in a positive light

Dion found that attractive people are consistently rated as more successful, kind and sociable when compared to unattractive people.
This means that we not only believe good-looking people are more physically attractive but we also expect them to have other desirable characteristics and tend to behave more positively towards them.

Physically attractive feature

Facial symmetry - indicator of good genes, health, innate preference, easier to process.

Matching hypothesis

Theory of interpersonal attraction which argues that relationships are formed between two people who are equal/similar in terms of social desirability.
The theory suggests that people assess their own value and then make realistic choices by selecting the best available potential partners who are likely to share the same level of attraction.

Why:

• fear of rejection →choosing people with a higher chance of acceptance

• cognitive mechanism →subconscious process where people assess their own value and compare it to potential partners

• stability →perceived as equal so there is less jealousy and insecurity

Research support for matching hypothesis

Taylor et al
Obtained activity logs from the internet dating site ‘hot or not’

60 men and 60 women were chosen as initiators. They then identified all who had been contacted by these initiators. Then independent raters were asked to give a total sample of 997 people an attractiveness score.
They found that initiators contacted people all over the scale, but matching was evident when it came to responses →targets who were of a similar attractiveness were more likely to respond, if targets were more attractive than the initiator then they were less likely to respond.

Evaluations of physical attractiveness explanation

(-) Subjectivity
→some people place less emphasis on physical attractiveness
→people’s idea of attractiveness can differ

(-) reductionist → physical attractiveness is not the only reason for a relationship. Individual difference on what people look for in a relationship.
Can be less important to females compared to males.

(+) support of physical attractive features from the evolutionary explanation

Self disclosure

• Revealing personal information about yourself

• Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops

• These self-disclosures about someone’s deepest thoughts/feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately

Social penetration theory

• through self-disclosure individuals in a couple penetrate each others lives

• In romantic relationships it involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners - This theory claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences and listening to their reciprocal sharing, people gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust.

Breadth and depth of self-disclosure

At the start of the relation ship - breadth = surface level information that we would reveal to anyone as it is ‘low-risk’.

As the relationship goes on - depth = things that matter most to us are revealed →intimate, high risk information eg. painful memories and experiences, strongly held beliefs, life ambitions, past relationships.

Conditions of social penetrations

• If someone reveals too much too soon it may make the other feel uncomfortable or even less special.

• If self disclosure is not reciprocated this leaves one person feeling vulnerable

• If a person doesn’t allow for reciprocation, the other person may become bored and feel he other person is not interested in them.

Research support for self-disclosure

Sprecher et al

Used pairs of students who did not know each other, each pair took part in 2 interactions:

• Interaction 1: Student A instructed to disclose personal information while student B listened. Afterwards student B reported a higher liking for student A then vice versa.

• Interaction 2: Student B disclosed personal information, then when rating there was no difference in liking between the students.

After both had disclosed information, their ‘like’ for each other had increased so it was equal

Evaluations of self-disclosure theory

(+) Application to real world relationships
→ Can be applied to help people who want to work on communication in their relationships.
→They can learn to

(-) Furthermore, by reducing relationship satisfaction to a single factor, Social Penetration Theory ignores many other aspects of romantic attraction, such as physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity. This suggests that research into romantic relationships could benefit from the use of an idiographic approach that studies couples’ unique experiences in detail, rather than trying to establish a set of laws that apply to all couples.

(-) Individual differences
→Cultural
→Gender - females place more emphasis on communication compared to males

Filter theory

• Social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity

• Relationships develop through three filters with different factors becoming important at different times, individual filters through the filter of availables to create a much smaller group - the field of desirables

1 Social demography

• Factors which may limit whether potential partners meet in the first place

• geographical location, class, education, ethnicity and religion

• key benefit of many is accessibility and effort

• the outcome is homogamy →forming a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar

2 Similarity in attitudes

• Similar beliefs and values

• Views of career, family, political views, morals

• Encourages greater self disclosure and consequently a deeper connection

• ‘law of attraction’ = ‘like attracts like’

• important in the earlier stages of a relationship

3 Complementarity

• meeting each others needs

• - partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks

• more important for long term couples - in later stages opposites attract

• cooking, introvert-extrovert, talker-listener

• complementarity is attractive because it gives the feeling of together being a whole

Evaluations of filter theory

(+) High face validity
→ is relatable to most people’s experiences of forming a relationship
→ makes sense and is understandable
→ eg. factors like location are fundamental to most people to even meet their partner

(+) Research support from Gruber-Baldini
→found that couples who were similar in age and educational level were more likely to be successful and stay together for longer

(-) Low temporal validity - 1962
→now with the development of dating apps people can place physical filters on what they want - or they can find a bigger variety of people
→ with social media etc distance is not such a large issue as people can maintain constant contact when not together
→society is also more fluid and accepting of differences in education and class

(-) More time spent together the more similar you become →not necessarily a filter
→ not really a cause and effect but more of a longitudinal change
→ phenomenon called emotional convergence
→ attitude-alignment affect

Social exchange theory

• Proposes that social behaviour is the result of an exchange process in which people weigh the potential benefits and costs of a relationship - conducting a cost-benefit analysis while comparing alternatives

• People try to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of a relationship

• The outcome equation: People will pursue relationships, where the rewards are greater than costs and abandon them where costs are greater than profit.

Cost benefit analysis
examples of costs/rewards

Individuals are constantly keeping score of what they put in vs get out of a relationship.

Rewards = affection, validation, shared resources or security

Costs = emotional strain, loss of time or financial burden.

Comparison level

• The amount of reward that you believe you deserve to get

• develops from previous relationships, social norms etc

• Linked to self esteem

Comparison level for alternatives

• When a person evaluates if they could do better off in a different relationship or alone

• if the costs outweigh the rewards of a relationship then, alternatives will become more attractive

• Being in a satisfying relationship means you may not even notice alternatives

Stages of Relationship development

1. Sampling Stage
   →exploring costs/rewards of social exchange and experimenting with them in platonic relationships

2. Bargaining Stage
   → At the beginning of a relationship, starting to exchange costs/rewards, negotiating and identifying what is most profitable

3. Commitment Stage
   →As time goes on, the sources of costs/rewards become predictable, the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs lessen

4. Institutionalisation Stage
   →partners are stable, the relationship is established and norms of exchange are set

Positive evaluations of SET

• Real life application → Integrated Behavioural Couples therapy

  • Partners are trained to increase the proportion of positive exchanges in their everyday lives (rewards) and decrease negative interactions (costs)

  • It works of the basis of SET, focuses on analyzing relationships in terms of cost-benefit analysis to improve relationship satisfaction.

  • Aids couples to resolve/save their relationship

• Research Support - Rusbult

  • 7 month questionnaire study on students

  • found that satisfaction, investment & alternative predicted commitment & longevity of the relationships

  • During the honeymoon phase, balances of exchange were ignored however later on, costs were compared with satisfaction

  • Shows that long term relationships involve Social Exchange Theory

Negative evaluations of SET

• Oversimplified economic model

  • Romantic relationships are not only transactional

  • influence of emotion and attachment on rationality and logical thinking

  • The model has a better application to work colleagues

• Costs/benefits are subjective concepts that are hard to define

  • What some may find rewarding eg. high praise all the time - others may find annoying/offputting

  • It is not clear how much the costs would need to outweigh rewards for someone to leave the relationship

Equity theory

Relationship satisfaction depends on perceived fairness, not just maximising rewards.
Partners seek a proportional balance where costs minus benefits are equitable.

Inequity leads to dissatisfaction, with under-benefitted partners feeling frustration and over-benefitted partners feeling guilt.

Proportionality, not equality

Means the ration of inputs to outcomes is similar for both partners, not that they receive identical rewards

Inequality distress

If a relationship is perceived as unfair, both partners feel distressed which can lead to attempts to restore equity or relationship breakdown.

Restoring equity

Partners may restore equity by altering their inputs/outcomes (actual equity) or by changing their perceptions of the relationship (cognitive equity). The theory proposes that equity will increase over time in long lasting relationships.

Research support - Stafford and Canary

• Procedure asked over 200 married couples to complete measures of equity and relationship satisfaction

• Highest satisfaction for partners who perceived the relationship to be equitable. This was followed by over-benefitted partners then under-benefitted partners

• They found that underbenefitted husbands reported the lowest levels of relationship maintenance strategies. Partners who were in equitable relationships are more likely to

Positive evaluations of Equity theory

(+) Application to couples therapy

• Change cognitive perceptions of inequity, so partners can understand why the other may be feeling under-benefitted or to recognise that the other partner is contributing a lot that they do not realise

• They can also address which partner might be overbenefitting and why, and how equity can be restored in the relationship.

• This can help couples improve their relationships and navigate any problems

(+) Stafford and Canary research support

Negative evaluations of couples therapy

(-) Issues with cause and effect

• Did the inequity cause dissatisfaction in the relationship or did dissatisfaction in the relationship cause someone to stop putting effort in causing inequity

• Hard to separate the two and reduces validity of the explanation

(-) Deterministic and does not take into account individual differences

• It is deterministic because inequity is not the only reason for couples to break up, and inequity does not always lead to couples breaking up

• Not all partners in relationships are concerned about achieving equity, some people like to be the providers or do not mind compensating for others. Some people feel like they deserve to over-benefit in the relationship.

Rusbult’s investment model

the idea that commitment level is determined by satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size.

high commitment leads to relationships maintenance strategies.
commitment is the most important factor, more so than satisfaction

Investment size

Large investments increase commitment level.

• Intrinsic investment - things individuals put into the relationship. e.g. time, money, effort, self disclosure and emotion.

• Extrinsic investment - things that were not there before the relationship, and could be outcomes of it. e.g. house, children, shared memories and mutual friends

These create more of a reason to stay in a relationship due to the size of input and

Satisfaction and comparison levels

• as long as the rewards outweigh the costs

• If costs outweigh rewards then comparison levels increase, because commitment is lower

• comparison could be to alternative partners or being alone.

Relationship maintenance strategies

Mechanisms partners use to keep relationships going.

• Accomodation - acting to promote the relationship rather than tallying costs and rewards

• Willingness to sacrifice - putting partner’s interests first

• Positive illusions - being unrealistically positive about partner’s qualities

• Perceived superiority - maximising the rewards and pros of the relationships

• Ridiculing alternatives - minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light.

Positive evaluations of Rusbult’s investment model

(+) Application to real life ↠ Why people stay in abusive relationships:

• Low satisfaction, but high commitment due to high investments and perceived no alternatives

  • C- Socially sensitive, kind of excuses the abuser/victim it over simplifies why they might stay in the relationship when it is very complicated

(+) Holistic

• Personal and individual ↠ lots of different factors that affect commitment: investment, satisfaction and alternatives

• Emotional = satisfaction, emotional investment

• Environmental = house, friends etc

• Cognitive = positive illusions, minimising alternatives due to cognitive bias

(+) Research support - Rusbult and Marz

• “Battered" Women Study: In their study of women in abuse shelters, they found that women were more likely to return to an abusive partner if they had high investment in the relationship (e.g., shared children, shared house) and poor, if any, alternatives.

• Nonvoluntary Dependence: The study established that individuals may remain in a relationship due to "nonvoluntary dependence," a state of high commitment despite low satisfaction, driven by the high cost of ending the relationship.-

Negative evaluations of Rusbult’s investment model

(-) The majority of research into the Investment Model is correlational, so psychologists are unable to conclude that investment causes commitment in relationships.
This limits the predictive validity of the model, as it would fail to predict which types of investment and how much investment will lead to long-term commitment to a relationship.
Lack of predictive validity also makes the Investment Model less scientifically rigorous, as the ability to predict people's behaviour, in this case, whether or not they will stay committed to the relationship, is one of the main goals of psychology as a science

Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck argues that relationships don’t just end, but go through stages along the process.

Duck suggested that one (or both) partner will reach a ‘threshold’ where perception of the relationship changes. Once the partner is dissatisfied, they will go through various phases.

1. Intra-psychic stage

The individual focuses on cognitive processes, privately brooding on their dissatisfaction and evaluating alternatives to the relationship, and may begin to make plans for the future. Focus is on their partner’s shortcomings.

2. Dyadic stage

‘I would be justified in withdrawing’ - focus is on interpersonal processes between the couple. The dissatisfaction is confronted, the couple discusses their issues, often leading to conflict and hostility. As the issues are actively discussed and may be the desire to repair the relationships and there is potential for reconciliation. They may choose interventions such as couple counselling.

3. Social phase

The focus is on the wider processes involved in the couple’s social network. The breakup is made known to friends and family, who may take sides or offer advice. Factions may be formed. Some may provide reassurance, others might judge. Breakdown is now harder to reverse moving towards the threshold where it is inevitable.

4. grave dressing phase

’It is now inevitable’ The couple have both officially split up and the focus is on the aftermath. Both parties will form a narrative of the relationship and the breakdown - likely minimising their own fault and maximising others - maximising their potential to move on. Each partner is likely to retain social credit by circumstances, the other partner or other people. This phase also includes creating a private personal story that is palatable.

Positive evaluations of Duck’s phase model

(+) Real life application

• The model displays opportunities to resolve the breakdown,

• In the intrapsychic stage, a resolution could be to stop focusing on the negatives of a person and focus on the positives.

• In the dyadic phase, improved communication could be beneficial

C - not much can resolve the latter stages of the breakdown

Negative evaluations of Duck’s phase model

(-) Incomplete - adds the resurrection phase

• The focus is on activities that move the individual forward in their new life. This stage involves picking up the pieces and re-establishing oneself as a single person. The attention is on future relationships using the experiences gained from the recently-ended one.

• This is a good addition as it accounts for the dynamic nature of the relationship