Relationships - Psychology

Evolutionary explanations

Based on the idea that human beings seek to continue their genetic line using the mechanisms of adaptation to ensure their survival (achieved via reproductive success). Traits are passed down from generation to generation with only the fittest traits surviving this process: in terms of sexual selection, this would mean selecting a partner who is likely to give your offspring the best chance of survival and further reproduction. The evolutionary explanation of sexual selection is based purely on opposite-sex attraction (as, until fairly recently, it was only possible to reproduce via traditional sexual intercourse). The traits which are deemed attractive by males and by females are quite distinct and have different functions according to evolutionary psychology

Inter-sexual selection

Inter-sexual attraction refers to the differences between males and females and the ways in which these differences manifest themselves as attractive qualities in a mate. Inter-sexual attraction can be seen vividly and obviously in animal mating patterns. E.g., the male peacock’s display of colourful feathers to attract a female; the zig-zag dance performed by male sticklebacks to attract the attention of fertile females

One of the main features of inter-sexual selection is female choosiness

The concept that females must be more cautious and wary when choosing a sexual partner than males need to. One of the main explanations for female choosiness is anisogamy - the idea that ‘sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive’, i.e., men can produce billions of spermatozoa per day, whereas a woman will produce only one egg per month

Therefore, females must take care not to have sex with ‘just anyone’, as the result could be pregnancy: the female may be saddled with a partner who lacks sufficient resources (males can have a lot of sex and never get pregnant so the same conditions do not apply to them!)

Intra-sexual selection

Intra-sexual selection refers to the ways in which one sex competes for the attention of the opposite sex. Competition takes place between males for the attention of females (according to evolutionary psychology, females do not need to compete for male attention, as the assumption is that males desire lots of females: quantity, not the quality desired by females). The obvious physical and psychological attributes a male should possess in order to triumph over his rivals and find reproductive success include: height, muscles, physical fitness, aggression. As females do not need to physically compete for males’ attention, they have evolved to be smaller, less muscular, and have less physical strength (physical dimorphism)

Evaluation of Sexual Selection & Evolutionary Partner Preferences

• There is some validity to this theory, as seen in research findings such as Buss (cross-cultural survey over 33 countries that found that females prefer male partners who have resources and traits such as ambition, whereas males prefer younger female partners that are attractive and fertile) and in anecdotal evidence derived from real-world observations of male-female mating behaviour, i.e., it is more common to see a rich, older man with a much younger woman than vice-versa

• Research by Daly & Wilson (2001) supports the idea that young men who live in dangerous neighbourhoods with a high homicide rate are more likely to take risks and put themselves in danger in order to attract women (i.e., to pass on their genes while they are still able to do so)

• The theory lacks external validity, as it does not account for variations in mating preferences, e.g., women are actually able to support themselves and do not necessarily need to rely on a man; some men do not focus on physical attractiveness above all else when looking for a female mate

• Evolutionary theory is solely concerned with heterosexual mating preferences and reproduction, which means that it has limited applicability to homosexual people and to the LGBTQ community as a whole

What is self-disclosure?

Self-disclosure is the act of revealing personal information about the self to another person. The nature of self-disclosure and how much is revealed will depend on a number of factors:

• The person to whom the details are disclosed, e.g., a romantic partner.

• The stage of the relationship, e.g., in the first few weeks; after several months; after several years (even though self-disclosure is a factor in attraction, it still continues as the relationship progresses)

• The person who is disclosing the information, e.g., they may be a naturally confident, outgoing person or they may be naturally shy and reticent

• The nature of the details being disclosed, e.g., these may be banal, e.g., ‘I went to St Freud’s school’ or controversial, e.g., ‘I have spent time in prison’

• The reasons behind the self-disclosure, e.g., to cement a bond of trust between the partners perhaps or maybe to encourage self-disclosure from the other person (known as reciprocity)

Self-disclosure is not a set and stable type of communication: it is likely to vary per individual depending on their age, their relationship status, their profession, their mood, etc.

Theories of self-disclosure - Social Penetration Theory

Social Penetration Theory, suggested by Altman & Taylor (1973), describes the process of self-disclosure, beginning with shallow levels of disclosure and gradually progressing deeper as the person reveals more private information, thoughts, desires, hopes, and secrets to the other person.

• Superficial self-disclosure might include details of where someone lives, their job, their hobbies; the information has some breadth but not much depth

• Intimate self-disclosure might include someone’s ambitions, previous relationship history, or a fall-out they had with their mother

• Personal self-disclosure starts to go deeper into areas such as hopes, desires, mistakes made in the past, insecurities, etc

• Core self-disclosure has real depth and possibly less breadth, as someone may only have a few (or choose to disclose only a few) details which are buried deep within the layers of their psyche, e.g., their innermost fears, something they feel guilty or embarrassed about or something that risks rejection from their partner

As each layer is ‘peeled’ away, the relationship (according to SPT) becomes stronger

Social Comparison Theory

• Social Comparison Theory (SCT), suggested by Festinger (1954), describes how an individual will assess their worth and value by comparing themselves to others

• Upward comparison occurs when someone feels that others (or specifically their partner) are superior to them, e.g. better-looking, richer, more intelligent

• Downward comparison occurs when someone feels that others (or specifically their partner) are inferior to them, e.g. less interesting, not as well-dressed, less athletic

• Someone may disclose personal information about themselves to a potential (or even existing) partner to gauge their reaction, e.g., ‘Have I made myself look silly? Are they impressed?’

• Someone may make disclosures about their achievements, which could lead to self-validation if the person being disclosed to responds with praise and admiration

• Someone may disclose information about their beliefs and values to determine the extent to which they are similar or different to the other person, whether these beliefs and values are acceptable or unacceptable

How does self-disclosure affect relationships?

SPT argues that self-disclosure is essential if a relationship is to develop and thrive. SPT claims that self-disclosure is a kind of ‘glue’ that holds a relationship together, as it creates trust between partners, plus it reinforces the special bond that the couple have. Self-disclosure can be risky:

• If one person discloses and the other person then fails to follow through with their disclosure, it can unbalance a relationship and lead to inequality in terms of trust

• Disclosing high-risk personal details (possibly involving illegal or immoral features) to another person gives that person some power and can put the discloser in a position of vulnerability, which is why the SPT model suggests that only low-level details are disclosed at first

SCT suggests that people engage in social comparison via self-disclosure, which allows each partner to determine whether or not they are interested in pursuing a relationship. The SCT explanation of self-disclosure is that each person provides a kind of mirror which reflects the image of the discloser by either affirming or denying each partner’s self-image (and, as a result of this, their self-esteem)

Evaluation of self-disclosure 

• Self-disclosure has good application  - at least in Westernised nations: with its emphasis on open communication, it can be used to guide and inform relationship counselling.

• The rewards of using self-disclosure wisely are not confined to romantic relationships. It can help to build and maintain friendships, family bonds, professional relationships, etc.

• Self-disclosure is a difficult variable to operationalise, as it is open to subjective interpretation. This means that associated theories lack the features of science

• Self-disclosure theories do not explain how some relationships do not follow the ‘rules’ and yet remain healthy, e.g., one partner discloses a lot while the other partner rarely discloses anything of any great importance or depth

Physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness may be what first draws a couple together. Each partner finds the physical appearance of their mate to be pleasing, and this further motivates the couple to spend more time together

• There is some research which attempts to explain who/what is deemed attractive universally: The babyface hypothesis (Berry & MacArthur, 1986) rests on the assumption that people are drawn to the appealing, unthreatening features of babies, e.g. large eyes, soft skin, and a blemish-free appearance, as these act as social releasers prompting nurture and feelings of protectiveness in the observer. Attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them (Langlois et al. 2001). Facial configurations which closely resemble the population mean and which have symmetry, dimorphism (i.e., a female face looks identifiably feminine), and youthfulness tend to be preferred across cultures, as this may signal the ability to develop normally, whatever environmental conditions are present.

• Being found physically attractive can have wide-ranging, long-term benefits, such as being  less lonely, less socially anxious and more popular (Feingold, 1992). Attractive people may receive less harsh punishments in a court of law than unattractive people (Zebrowitz & McDonald, 2001)

The halo effect

To describe the array of positive personal qualities, traits and skills that are attributed to good-looking people It can be summarised as the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype. The halo effect occurs when a good-looking person is thought to be more sociable, kind, intelligent, interesting; they are deemed to be socially desirable. The halo effect operates outside of gender, age and cultural parameters. It appears to be a universal construct; e.g., students from the USA and Korea found good-looking people to be more friendly and trustworthy than those deemed unattractive (Kim, 1997). The influence of entertainment such as Disney films perpetuates the stereotype that beauty equals goodness, e.g. heroes and heroines are attractive; ‘baddies’ are generally ‘ugly’ (large hooked noses, hunched backs, bad skin, crooked features). The halo effect is a type of cognitive bias, as it involves generalising conclusions and forming an impression about a good-looking person based only on their attractiveness and on no other available information

The matching hypothesis

The matching hypothesis (Walster, 1966) is based on the assumption that people tend to pair up with partners who are of roughly the same level of attractiveness as they are. The matching hypothesis is a cognitive mechanism that uses self-rating and rating of others based solely on physical appearance, e.g., ‘I think I rate as a level 7 out of 10, so I’m looking for another 7, ideally an 8, but I may have to settle for a 6’. The matching hypothesis revolves around ideas as to self-worth and self-esteem, i.e., if your partner is deemed to be ‘ugly’, then this will affect your social standing but if your partner is a ‘looker’, then your social status will rise; either outcome will affect how you view yourself (as worthy or not worthy). There is a fine balancing act involved in the matching hypothesis. Someone must weigh up their chances of aiming for someone ‘out of their league’ and risk rejection, or ‘settle’ for a partner who is less attractive than them

Evaluation of factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness

• Feingold’s (1998) meta-analysis of research on the matching hypothesis, using actual couples, found that partners tended to be equally attractive. This finding increases the external validity of the theory, as it can be seen in operation in real life

• There is some predictive validity in the halo effect: Landy & Sigall (1975) found that essays written by attractive schoolchildren were graded higher than those written by unattractive schoolchildren

• Taylor et al. (2011) investigated the matching hypothesis using the activity logs of an online dating site, which revealed that people do not necessarily apply the matching hypothesis when it comes to dating decisions, professing a preference for the most attractive males/females on the site

• Notions of ‘what is attractive?’ are highly subjective and prone to individual differences, which means that associated theories lack scientific validity

Filters in romantic relationships

A filter is a type of criterion applied to a field of available’s to determine which amongst them is likely to provide a good ‘match’. Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) suggested filter theory after conducting research with real-life couples, asking them what it was that attracted them to each other in the first place and why the relationship was (up to that point) successful

Proximity is key when it comes to the first stage of filtering, i.e., who you live/work nearest to. Hollywood films may romanticise long-distance love, but the reality is that relationships tend to form based on practicality, i.e., who is easier to form a relationship with - someone who lives around the corner or someone who lives on the other side of the world? Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) concluded that people apply a set of criteria (filters) which help them to narrow down the field of available’s to a field of desirables who represent the best choice in terms of potential partner. Filters tend to fall within the three general levels, but they are entirely subjective, as one person’s idea of ‘desirable’ is another person’s idea of ‘undesirable'

Social demography

Social demography refers to the first level of filtering, as it takes in a broad sweep of variables which determine who an individual is likely to come into contact with as part of their everyday life, such as:

• geographical location

• workplace

• hobbies

• lifestyle

• habits

Festinger et al. (1950) found that students who lived in adjoining rooms or the same corridor of student accommodation blocks formed more and closer friendships with each other than with students who lived in a different corridor, floor or block. Therefore, proximity is key when it comes to the first stage of filtering, i.e. who do you live/work in closest proximity to? Daily habits such as going to the gym, popping into the same cafe for your morning latte on the way to work, and taking your dog for a walk every day can all lead to encounters with potential partners Level of education, religious and political beliefs (which may also involve attending church or meetings) also contribute to this first level of filtering, as they involve the meeting of like-minded people, which can be important for establishing a relationship in the first place

Similarity in attitudes

Similarity in attitudes describes that people tend to form relationships with those who share their attitudes, outlook, worldview, etc. Similarity in attitudes forms the second level of filtering, as the field of availables has already gone through the first filter, so it is at this point that more stringent criteria are applied, i.e., nobody wants to date someone just because they live around the corner; there has to be some meeting of minds involved. It is only in the first 18 months or so of relationship formation that similarity in attitudes is a key factor (Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962); once the relationship is established, this filter has passed, and thus the need to establish similarity is not as vital. Relationships based on physical attraction only are likely to ‘fizzle out’ after the first heady rush is over. If the couple do not share values, beliefs and attitudes, then there is no firm foundation on which to build the relationship (Byrne, 1997)

Complementarity of needs

Complementarity refers to how a couple provides what the other needs in a relationship, i.e., they complement each other (not to be confused with complimenting each other). Complementarity forms the third level of filtering as the potential field of availables has been narrowed down. A relationship may have been established with someone from the field of desirable, and it is at this point that each partner asks, ‘Is this relationship working for me?’. A couple who complement each other will each bring to the relationship something that their partner is not able to bring. E.g., Sam does all the cooking, Jen does all the gardening; Brenda is outgoing, Glenda is reserved. Complementarity, according to Kerckhoff & Davis (1962), is not so important in the early stages of a relationship but is crucial for long-term happiness. A successful relationship may well depend on complementarity as each person fulfils the needs of their partner, which results in a relationship that does not consist of two separate individuals but is instead a whole

Evaluation of filter theory

• There is quite a convincing body of research evidence to suggest that filter theory has some validity; e.g., Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) found that social demography is a key determining factor in the first phase of relationship formation.

• The theory makes sense. People do tend to form romantic relationships with those from their neighbourhood, hometown, college, workplace, etc., who share similar attitudes, i.e., it has external validity.

• The theory cannot account for relationships which defy the odds. Long-distance couples, couples who are opposed in terms of attitudes, and couples who are so alike as to not complement each other. Thus, it lacks full explanatory power

• There is a lack of temporal validity to filter theory due to the proliferation of online dating and contact via social media channels. This means that proximity, for example, is not an issue in relationship formation

Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory (SET) is what might be termed one of the ‘economic’ theories of romantic relationships, as it draws from the language of banking, investment and finance in the way that it conceptualises the functioning of relationships. SET was proposed by Thibault & Kelley (1959) as a way of explaining how people view the costs and benefits of their current relationship. SET operates along the minimax principle. The idea that people in relationships will aim to minimise their losses and maximise their profits as would a business (profits equal rewards minus costs). Rewards, costs and losses are entirely subjective and will depend on each individual. E.g., Betty enjoys feeling rewarded when her cooking is praised, but Bertie does not consider this to be important, so Betty’s delicious lasagne goes unrecognised and without praise. All relationships require each partner to be rewarded and to gain from the profit if the relationship is to survive, so each couple needs to negotiate the terms of this exchange either directly or via experience and learning. E.g., Bertie learns that he should always say something nice about Betty’s cooking. All relationships will require certain sacrifices, which offset the rewards (and in the long run may contribute to building a more rewarding relationship). E.g., foregoing nights out at the pub for a quiet night in, living in a town instead of the countryside, putting up with each other’s family, taking a job with a lower salary, which means more personal time to spend as a couple. Costs can, however, destabilise a relationship if they lead to arguments, conflict, resentment, etc., so a fine balance is required, which will take time to achieve and is only achievable via hard work and rather a lot of compromise on both sides

Comparison levels

• Comparison levels (CL) are used by each partner in a couple to determine the extent to which they are profiting from the relationship. CLs evolve based on a person’s experience of previous relationships, e.g. the amount and quality of rewards received in the past, or the costs, and whether these costs proved to be worth the rewards. The media is also responsible for informing ideas surrounding a person’s CLs. E.g., ‘Would Kim Kardashian put up with this?’. Cultural norms are also key factors in determining CLs: some cultures may assume that high costs are an inevitable part of being in a relationship, whereas other cultures may encourage a sense of entitlement in relationships E.g., ‘I deserve so much more’. Self-esteem plays a key role in CLs too. A person with high self-esteem will demand better rewards than a person with low self-esteem, so the relationship is considered viable if the CL is better, i.e., more profit,  than past relationships. Comparison levels for alternatives (CLalt) are used to determine whether or not a new, different relationship would bring more rewards (and by extension, profit)  than the current relationship. E.g., ‘Bernie always praises my cooking; maybe I’d be happier with him than with Bertie’. People will stay in their current relationship if it appears to yield more profit than potential alternatives. E.g., ‘Bertie may not always praise my cooking, but he’s always taking me off on surprise holidays’.