Relationships AO3

What is a strength of evolutionary predictions of mate preferences?

• supporting ev Buss et al - in 37 cultures, men preferred physically attractive women younger than them, whereas women showed pref for men with resources

• Suggest men look for fertility in women and women look for resources/protection

• Valu of ev q as pps reported their pref for a mate rather than actual characteristics of their partner so fails to reflect compromises ppl make when selecting partner IRL

• Further research Buss - in 29 cultures men choose younger women, and if divorce and remarry, marry women who are much younger than them

• Suggest Youth is evolved pref as shows fertility

• Useful explanation as ev support evolutionary idea

Strength of evolutionary explanations in preferences for mates

• supporting Clark + Hatfield - when approached by stranger of opposite sex and asked if they wanted to have sex, 75% men agreed. No women agreed

• Suggest male sexual pref based on quantity not quality

• But explanation exaggerates sex diff in pref and motivation for ST mating cuz male desire for causal sex wouldn’t have evolved if females weren’t willing to engage too

• Greiling and Buss - short term mating maybe adaptive for females EEA as used as means to exit poor quality relationship or incr poss of producing more genetically diverse offspring

• Good explanation but limited in explanaining short term mating

limit of evolutionary explanation of preferences in mates

• reductionist - cause of mate selection down to level of genetic adaptation

• Problem - fails to explain indv diff in characteristics modern humans are attracted to eg some women pref men with masculine facial features but some women like feminine facial features

• Further research sugg female mate pref linked to their menstrual cycle - Pentok Vauk found women like more masculine face during most fertile stage of mencycle and more fem at other times

• Can be argued these diff have evolutionary basis as masc facial feature indicate strong immune system which is favourable to pass on

• Suggest women wants male with good quality genes to produce good quality offspring

Limit of matching hypothesis

• opposing Taylor - decision made by online daters, were based on attractiveness of Potential Partner rather than similarities of their own and PP PA

• Suggest ppl dont take into acc their own physical attractiveness in initial stages, but instead attracted to ppl who potentially more desirable than them

• May only be relevant to online dating where somebody can post photo that makes them look most attractive

• However also found - indv who targeted PP who had similar PA to them more likely to get response to their messages. Suggests ppl try to make realistic choice when choosing PP

• Thus physical attractiveness major factor in attraction

Another limit of matching hypothesis?

• gender bias - assume men and women equally concerned about selecting partner with similar PA to them, even tho research shown diff exist

• Takeuchi - women place less value on PA of PP than men, indicates matching hyp has beta bias as ignores gender diff in value of PA as factor

• Suggest men more easily compensate for lack of PA by displaying other traits that women find desirable eg kindness

• Supports idea not only does man need to be physicall able but needs to be kind ans share resources

• Thus PA not major factor

Strength of self disclosure

• support ev Sprecher and Hendrick - Hetero men and women who engaged in SD and believed their partner did too were more satisfied and committed to relationship

• Sugg SD positive impact on relationshiP

• +research SD can influecne maintenance of relationships as regular communication helps partners increase intimacy and strengthen bond

• EG Hass and Stafford 57% gay men and women said open honest SD main way to maintain and deepen relationship

• Suggest breakups caused by reduction in SD but Duck argue couples discuss state of their ship in attempt to save or return to previous level

• Thus self disclosure valuable explanation

Limit of self disclosure

• Culturally biased - assumed increasing depth of SD leads to more satisfying and intimate relationships regardless of culture

• Problem research show cultural diff exist in extent of SD in relationship as cultural norm influence topics are appropriate talk about and how comfortable men and women are in SD

• Eg Tang et al Men and women in US share sig more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in china

• Levels of sexual self disclosure in both countries linked to relationship satisfaction

• Not universal explanation so lack value

Limit of filter theory

• lack temporal validity - recent rise of online dating eg Tinder has reduced importance of social demographic variables eg proximity, class as factors influencing relationship formation

• Problem - feild of availables not limited to ppl indv work with/school/uni

• Question validity of theory as exp for relationship f in todays society

• H research indicates realistic feild of PP is narrow as homogeniser still key factor of attraction and relationship f

• Because homogamy makes relationship easier, more practical, reduces conflict

• Lacks value due to modern developments on online dating

Another limit of filter theory?

• culturally biased - based on f of relationships in Western culture, where ppl have lot of freedom and choice when choosing partner

• So form relationships which are satisfying

• Problem research suggest less emphasis on need for relationships to be satisfying for individual in non western cultures so limits extent theory generalised to relationships in other cultures

• Acc to Goodwin RF in non western based on social status and family ties rather level than of satisfaction gained

• Cuz some cultures arranged marriage mean ppl cant make decision based on needs

• Thus not universal explanation of RF

Strength of SET?

• ev Simpson et al - pps in relationship gave lower rating of PA to member of opposite sex than single pps. Suggest ppl only look for alternatives when unhappy

• Value of ev Q - artificial nature of task diff mean diff to generalise that IRL they would react in same way if exposed to alternative

• +Argyle argues ppl only start considering alternative when they’re dissatisfied with their current relationship

• Opposes assumption of SET that ppl always comparing their current relationship to other alt

• Thus application to real relationships limited

Further strength of SET?

• practical application - idea relationship satisfaction determined by perception rewards outweight costs used in relationship counselling to help couples with problem

• Gottman and Levenson - successful marriages had 5:1 ratio of positive to negative exchanges compared to unsuccessful with 1:1 or less

• Suggest Positives have to outweigh negatives for relationship to succeed

• Therapies like integrated behavioral couples therapy aim increase proportion of positive exchanges between partner and brea negative patterns of behaviour that make unhappy and dissatisfied with relationship

• Thus valuable

Limitation of SET?

• limited explanation of relationship

• Over emphasis on costs and benefits. Ignores other factors that play role in rel sat eg mental health, stress at work

• Problem theory doesn’t take into acc ind own beliefs may make them more tolerant of low benefits in RS. They may recognise that cost outweigh ben but put up with it

• + highlights diff in defining what counts as ben or cost within RS as what indv feels in ben may change as RS progresses

• Thus it can be argued that SET cannot explain relationship satisfaction without also considering individual differences in relation to standards and beliefs.