Relationships

Dion et al (1972)

Halo Effect - we perceive attractive people as having more attractive personalities

Bossard

More than half of 5,000 couples who applied to get married in Philly lived within a few minutes walk

Clark and Hatfield (1989)

• Sent male and female psychology students out across a university campus

• Approached other students individually and asked ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’

• Not a single female student agreed, whereas 75% of males did immediately

• Supports the view that females are choosier than males when selecting and males have evolved a different strategy to ensure reproductive success

Buss and Schmidt (2016)

(counterpoint)

• Argue they adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships

• Both are very choosy and look for partners who are for example loving, loyal and kind

Buss (1989)

• Survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries asking questions relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference

• Females placed greater value on resource related characteristics, good financial prospects and ambition

• Males valued PA and youth (as signs of good reproductive capacity)

Lawson et al (2014)

Found that preferences of homosexual men and women differ, just as they do in heterosexual men and women (men emphasised PA and women emphasised resources)

Penton-Voak (1999)

• Preferred a partner with strongly expressed masculine features during their fertile period, but showed more preference for a partner with slightly feminised features as a long-term mate

• This may be because masculine appearance suggests a healthier immune system, which would be advantageous to pass to offspring, while slightly feminine features suggest kindness and parental cooperation - desirable traits for a long-term partner

Sprecher and Hendrick (2004)

• Studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners, were more satisfied and committed

• Relationships closer and more satisfying when they take turns to SD (reciprocated) (2013)

  • However, correlation ≠ causation e.g. satisfied partners may SD more, could be a third variable (e.g. amount of time spent together)

Haas & Stafford (1998)

• Found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest SD was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships

• If less skilled partners learn to SD then this could benefit in terms of satisfaction and commitment - psychological insights can be valuable in helping ppl with relationship problems

Tang et al (2013)

• Found that men and women in the USA (individualist culture) disclose significantly more s thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (collectivist), but both had similar levels of relationship satisfaction

  • SD theory is a limited explanation - not necessarily generalisable to other cultures

Walster et al (1966)

The computer dance

• Male and female students invited to a dance, rated for PA and completed a questionnaire about themselves

• They were told the data about themselves (personality, self esteem etc.) and that the info would be used by a computer to decide their partner for the evening (actually paired up randomly)

• Hypothesis unsupported - most liked were the most PA, not taken own PA into account

• Replication by Berschied et al (1971) - each ppt selected partner for varying degrees of PA, tended to chose those who matched - therefore choice of partner is a compromise - we risk rejection in selecting the most attractive ppl available so we settle on those who are similar

Taylor et al (2011)

• Studied activity logs for a popular online dating site - real world test of matching hypothesis as measuring actual date choices and not merely preferences

• Found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners more physically attractive to them

• Undermines validity by contradicting its central prediction

  • CP - Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of PA for partners

  • Online daters seeking more attractive potential partners different from selecting partners in a relationship

Cunningham et al (1995)

• Found women with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white Hispanic and Asian men

• Concluded what is considered PA is remarkably consistent across societies

• Symmetrical features are a sign of genetic fitness + are perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection)

Palmer & Peterson (2012)

• Research support for halo effect - PA ppl rated as more politically knowledgeable + competent than unattractive, persisted even when they knew they had no particular expertise

  • Implications for political process - dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered attractive by enough voters

Touhey (1979)

• Individual differences - some do not attach much importance to PA

• Measured sexist attitudes of men and women using MACHO scale

• Found low scorers were relatively unaffected by PA when judging likeability of potential partners

Festinger (1950)

• Investigated that students who lived in rooms on 17 of the blocks on campus - more likely to be friends with ppl living closer (proximity)

• Most popular people lived near post-boxes and staircases, so were most likely to be ‘bumped into’

Levinger (1974)

• Found many studies failed to replicate original findings due to social changes over time (temporal validity)

• Due to changes in dating behaviour, eg. online dating - maybe filter 1 is less important

• Kerckhoff and Davis chose 18 months as the ‘cut-off’ for a LT relationship - debatable

• Questionable assumption which means that filter theory is undermined by lack of validity of its evidence base

Markey and Markey (2013)

• Found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied, involved for a mean time of more than 4.5 years

• Suggests that a similarity of needs rather than complementarity is associated with long-term satisfaction at least in some couples

Montoya et al (2008)

• Meta analysis - actual similarity affected attraction only in very short-term lab based interactions, perceived similarity being a stronger predictor in the real world

• Could be because they perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to eachother - effect of attraction, not cause

Kurdek (1995)

• Asked to complete questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables

• Found that those who were most committed also perceived most rewards and fewest costs and viewed alternatives as relatively unattractive

• Also demonstrated that the main SET concepts that predict commitment individually have an effect

  • CP - Equity - not just balance of rewards and costs, but the partner’s perceptions that this is fair - limited explanation

Argyle (1987)

• Argued that we don’t monitor costs and rewards, or consider alternatives, until after we are dissatisfied

• When we are satisfied with a relationship and committed to it, we do not even notice potentially attractive alternatives

• Suggests that considering costs/alternatives is caused by dissatisfaction rather than the reverse

Clark and Mills (2011)

• Inappropriate central assumptions - argue that we cannot apply this to romantic relationships

• Don’t ‘keep score’ because if they did, it would destroy the trust that underlies a close emotional relationship

Utne et al (1984)

• 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with 2 self-report scales, 16-45yrs, known eachother >2yrs before marriage

• Found those who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as overbenefitting or underbenfitting

  • CP - Equity may be a factor of satisfaction, but Berg and McQuinn found that equity did not increase over time, or that those which ended or continued differed in terms of equity. Other variables eg. SD were significantly more important - undermines the validity as equity does not play the role in dissatisfaction as predicted

Aumer Ryan et al (2007)

• Found cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction.

• Couples from a individualistic culture (US) considered their relationships to be most satisfying when relationship was equitable, whereas partners in a collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were overbenefitting (True for men and women so cannot be explained by gender differences)

Grote and Clark (2001)

• Argues that as soon as partners start monitoring eachother’s contributions, this is a sign of dissatisfaction (cause or effect)

• Van Yperen and Bunk - dissatisfaction in inequitable relationships increased with time, not other way round