psych - relationships (up to equity theory)

what is sexual selection

concept of successful reproduction - manifested in physical characteristics and behaviours

→ genetic ‘fitness’ and resultant characteristics considered to be adaptive

what is anisogamy

an explanation of sexual reproduction that involves the union or fusion of two gametes that differ in size and/or form (typically the smaller sperm and larger egg)

→ male gametes are smaller and many, requiring little energy to produce

→ female gametes are larger and fewer, requiring more energy to produce

→ leading to diff mating strategies

what is inter-sexual selection

refers to the strategies used by males to select females or vice versa

what is the strategy of inter-sexual selection that females tend to make

• selecting quality over quantity (egg availability is lower than sperm availability)

• suggested to be because the female investment of time/resources in the development of the foetus is much greater than that of the male

• traits favoured by the female (e.g. strength, height) are therefore selected by the female and reproduced

what is intra-sexual selection

refers to the competition between males to ‘distribute’ their sperm

→ ‘winning’ this competition leads to the male’s characteristics passing on to the next generation

what is dimorphism

the differences in physical characteristics between males and females of the same species

→ often related to mating strategies and selection

sexy sons hypothesis (fisher)

explains partner preferences in terms of the traits that a woman wants to see in her own offspring

→ sons who possess this desirable (adaptive) trait are then more likely to reproduce in the future

strengths of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

• research support for female choosiness

sent male and female students across a uni campus, who approaches others with the question "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?"

→ no female students agreed, but 75% of males did

• research support for intra-sexual selection

survey in 33 countries of over 10 000 adults, with questions about a variety of attributes important to evolutionary theory

→ females placed greater value on resources and males values physical attractiveness/youth

limitations of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

• simplistic argument

strategies differ depending on looking for long- or short- term relationships

→ lovingness, loyalty, kindness is looked for by both sexes for long-term relationships

• not applicable to the entire population

cannot explain the partner preferences of homosexual people

what is self disclosure

 the information that we share about ourselves with others that we meet

social penetration theory (altman & taylor)

The gradual and reciprocal exchange of information, through self-disclosure, which allows individuals to share increasingly personal and intimate knowledge about themselves

→ as disclosure increases, becoming more personal, partners gradually 'penetrate' more deeply into each others' lives

→ both breadth and depth increase over time

what is depenetration

Describes how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less and disengage from the relationship

reciprocity of self-disclosure (Reis & Shaver)

• for a relationship to develop disclosure needs to be reciprocal

• once you have disclosed something that reveals your 'true self', hopefully your partner responds in a rewarding way

→ with empathy, also sharing their own intimate thoughts and feelings

• there is a balance of self-disclosure between both partners in a successful relationship

-> increases intimacy and deepens the relationship

strengths of self-disclosure

• research support

strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for heterosexual relationships

→ self-disclosers more satisfied with/committed to their relationship, especially when it’s reciprocal

→ increased validity

• real-world application

research can help those who want to improve communication in relationships

57% of gay men and women said that honest self-disclosure is the way they maintain/deepen relationships

→ if partners learn to self-disclose, it could benefit their relationships and therefore valuable as can help people with relationship problems

limitations of self-disclosure

• cultural differences

reviewed research into sexual self-disclosure showed that people in the US (individualist) disclose more than in China (collectivist)

→ but, levels of satisfaction were the same

→ limits the explanation as it is less generalisable to other cultures

• correlational support

most research for this is correlational, so the conclusions could be the other way round (more satisfaction means more self-disclosure)(or even both are independent and affected by a third variable)

→ social penetration theory is less valid

what is the halo effect

a mental mechanism that draws people to generalise that 'attractive' people also possess other positive characteristics which are assumed to be as desirable as the attractive features

what is the matching hypothesis (Walster & Walster)

suggests that we look for partners that we perceive to be similar to ourselves in physical attractiveness (and also personality, intelligence, etc), rather than the most appealing people

research into the matching hypothesis (the computer dance - Walster et al.)

• matching hypothesis was not supported by the study!

men and women rated for objective attractiveness and paired by a computer

• However, was supported by another researcher

Pps were allowed to choose partners from varying degrees of attractiveness, and tended to pick those similar

• So, we tend to choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own

• Choice of partner is a compromise

Risk rejection in selecting the most attractive, so those in our league are chosen

evolutionary importance of physical attractiveness

people with symmetrical faces → more attractive as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness

baby-face features are also attractive → widely separated or large eyes, delicate chin, small nose → trigger a protective/caring instinct

strength of physical attractiveness

• research support for the halo effect

study where physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people

→ implications for the political process, suggesting dangers for democracy if politicians are judged suitable for office because they are attractive enough

• research support for evolutionary processes

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

→ conclusion that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures

→ importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level

limitations of the matching hypothesis

• not supported by real-world dating research

on a dating website, people sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them

→ less validity of matching hypothesis

• subjectivity of physical attractiveness

what is filter theory

• the entire field of potential partners available to us is the field of availables

• potential partners will be chosen on the basis of desirability, referred to as the field of desirables

• factors affecting desirability can be narrowed down to social demography, similarity in attitudes, and complementarity

what are the stages of filter theory

1. social demography (EARLY ON) - considered on the basis of (e.g.) proximity, education, class, religion

-> proximity is influential as those close to us are more accessible

Homogamy: likely to form a relationship with someone culturally/socially similar

 

2. similarity in attitudes (LATER) - related to values and beliefs or cultural characteristics

-> similarity promotes attraction (law of attraction)

 

3. complementarity (LATEST) - important at later stages, 'opposites' attract by providing a factor the other partner lacks

-> leads to feelings of 'completeness'

strength of filter theory

• research support

Kerckhoff & Davis’ longitudinal study

questionnaires to assess similarity of attitudes and complementarity and 7 months later relationship ‘closeness’ was measured

→ closeness and similarity of values associated for couples less than 18 months old

→ for longer-term relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness

limitations of filter theory

• complementarity may not be central to all long-term relationships

study found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied (of couples that had on average been together for over 4 ½ years)

→ similarity of needs may be more associated with long-term satisfaction

• perceived similarity matters more than actual similarity

meta-analysis found that actual similarity only affected results in short-term, lab-based interactions

→ irl, perceived similarity was a stronger predictor of attraction

→ partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to one another

→ perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction, not a cause

• subjectivity of measuring depth in relationships

• social change

at the first level filter, online dating aps have increased the field of availables