AQA Psychology - Relationships

what is human reproductive behaviour

• driven by the need to survive and reproduce

• both males and females need to ensure they have children and that those children survive to adulthood

what is natural and sexual selection

• the ability to compete with others of the same sex for mates and attract the opposite sex

• natural → any genes that are advantageous for survival are naturally selected

• sexual → genes that promote successful reproduction are selected

what is anisogamy

• the difference between male and female sex cells

• sperm are plentiful because they are ‘cheap’ and require less energy to produce

• eggs are fewer because they are ‘expensive’ and require more energy to produce

what is inter-sexual production

• selection between sexes, e.g. females selecting males to reproduce with based on specific traits

• females choose quality over quantity → females make a greater investment of time and commitment and so select a genetically fit partner who can provide resources

runaway process (inter-sexual selection)

e.g. if height is considered an attractive trait then, after several generations of females, height would increase in male population because females would mate with tall males and over time produce taller sons and daughters with a preference for taller partners (sexy son hypothesis)

what is intra sexual selection

• competition between species (usually males) for mates

• males choose quantity over quality → they compete between each other for females because sperm is plentiful and females are a limited resource and choosy

• males who ‘win’ pass their genes on to next generation

how does intra sexual selection impact partner preferences

• physical consequences → males who are bigger win competition for mates, so size is selected

• females also look for qualities that will raise a child to adulthood: money/resources and characteristics linked towards dominance e.g. tall

• males look for qualities that indicate fertility of healthy offspring e.g. large breasts

• behavioural consequences → male aggressiveness helps win competitions

ao3 of evolutionary explanations of relationships

✅research support for inter-sexual selection → Clarck & Hatfield (1989) had psychology students ask to sleep with other students, found 75% of men said yes while 0% of women said yes - supports that women are choosier while males want to mate with as many females as possible / ❌ Bust and Schmitt → argue this view is simplistic and both males and females seek quality in long term relationships

✅research support for intra-sexual selection → Buss (1989) took survey of over 10k adults in 32 countries asking about attributes the evolutionary theory predicted are important, found women see resource orientated factors as more important and men see physical characteristics as more important - supports predictions from sexual selection theory, ↑ construct validity / ❌ sexist theory

❌social and cultural influences are underestimated → women’s greater role in the workplace mean they aren’t dependent on men + not resource orientated - evolutionary theory is a limited explanation as it doesn’t account for social and cultural influences ∴ low explanatory power + validity

what are the factors affecting attraction

• self disclosure

• physical attractiveness

• filter theory

what is self disclosure

• revealing intimate information about yourself

• romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops, suggesting they trust the person

• strengthens romantic bond beyond initial attraction but if revealed too early can be detrimental to development of relationship

what is the social penetration theory

• Altman and Taylor (1973) → gradual process of revealing yourself, where a relationship moves from shallow and non-intimate to deep and intimate through both partners reciprocating disclosure

what are the elements of social penetration theory

• penetration → as they reveal more information they penetrate more deeply into eachother’s lives, but depenetration describes how dissatisfied partners disclose less as they disengage from relationship e.g. no longer telling partner about feelings

• breadth → narrow at start as if too much information is revealed too early, relationship may sever

• depth → as relationship develops more layers are gradually revealed, e.g. peeling an onion

ao3 for self disclosure

✅research support → Spretcher & Henrick (2004) studied straight couples and found strong correlation between several measures of satisfaction and self disclosure - suggests more self disclosure = more satisfaction in relationship, ∴ ↑ construct validity for self disclosure / ❌ doesn’t account for homosexual couples + correlation ≠ causation

✅RWA → Hass & Stratford (1998) found 57% gay men and women reported that open and honest self disclosure deepened their relationships - highlights importance of self disclosure as it supports those in happy relationships ∴ positive social implications, ↑ subjective happiness + quality of life / ❌ can’t be generalised to straight couples, ↓ population validity

❌cultural differences → e.g. Tang et al. concluded that individualist cultures (USA) self disclose more sexually than collectivist cultures (China) yet there is no difference in satisfaction - self disclosure doesn’t always increase satisfaction ∴ ethnocentric due to imposed etic & can’t be generalised to all cultures, ↓ population validity

❌contradicting research → social penetration claims as relationship is breaking down, self disclosure decreases but Duck created model suggesting couples actually self disclose more deeply to increase satisfaction - challenges theory / ❌ can’t be generalised or seen as reliable as people are unique and behave differently in relationships

ao3 for physical attractiveness

✅research support for Halo effect → Palmer & Peterson found physically attractive people were rated as more politicly knowledgeable than unattractive people - halo effect persisted even when these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise ∴ suggests there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as knowledgeable based on their looks → socially sensitive + economic applications (jobs cant ask for photos for applications to reduce bias)

✅research support for evolutionary processes → Cunningham et al. found women w/ small noses and large eyes were rated as highly attractive by white+hispanic+asian men - shows consistency across cultures, supporting idea that attributes showing genetic fitness are naturally/sexually selected / ❌only 3 ethnicities studied so cant be generalised to everyone, ↓ population validity + androcentric study w/ beta bias

❌conflicting research for matching hypothesis → Taylor et al. studied activity on dating websites (↑ ecological validity as it measures real world dating choices) and found online daters wanted meetings with partners more physically attractive than them - ↓ construct validity of matching hypothesis / however, choosing people for dating online differs from the real world, Feingold’s meta analysis found significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness and romantic partners, ↑ validity of matching hypothesis

ao3 for filter theory

✅research support → Kerckhoff & Davis’ longitudinal study where both partners did questionnaire to assess similarity & complementarity found closeness was associated with short term (<18months) & in longer term couples complementarity was needed - ↑ construct validity / ❌ Levinger said many studies failed to replicate results due to social changes and low temporal validity

❌complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction → Markey found lesbians with equal dominance were most satisfied and had long term relationships of 4^1/2 years - suggests similarity rather than complementarity is associated with long term relationships / ❌ can’t be generalised to heterosexual couples, ↓ population validity

❌perceived similarity matters more → Montoya et al.’s meta analysis found similarity is linked to attraction only in very brief lab based interactions + irl couples perceive they have more similarities as they become more attracted to eachother → so perceived similarity is may be an effect of attraction, not a cause, ↓ construct validity

ao3 for social exchange theory

✅research support → Kurdek et al interviewed homo and heterosexual couples and found committed partners had most rewards and fewer costs + main SET concepts predicting commitment are independent of eachother so individually have an effect (e.g. a partner can feel high commitment due to low CLalt even if rewards are low), confirms predictions + ↑ construct validity, ↑ population validity (gay, straight, lesbian couples) / ❌ ignores role of equity, in reality, the partner’s perceptions being fair is more important than the balance of rewards & costs, so ↓ explanatory power + limited

❌the direction of cause and effect is wrong → SET states people become dissatisfied when they find costs outweigh reward, however Argyle (1987) argues dissatisfaction comes first & then after we start to perceive costs, so considering costs is caused by dissatisfaction and not the other way round, ↓ construct validity, not predicted by SET

❌reductionist →