Studied by 4 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
human reproductive behaviour
refers to any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce, thereby increasing the survival of our genes. It includes the evolutionary mechanisms underlying our partner preferences and parental investment (both pro and pre birth).
sexual selection
reproductive success - the ability of an organism to survive and pass on their genes.
Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to the next generation and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
human reproductive behaviour - anisogamy
anisogamy - the difference between male and female sex cells (gametes).
males: sperms - small, highly mobile, created in vast numbers from puberty to old age + does not require much energy to be produced.
females: eggs/ova - relatively large, limited in number, require a significant amount of energy.
what is a consequence of anisogamy?
There is never a shortage of fertile males, but a fertile female is much rarer (a woman has a window of fertility each month during ovulation).
Anisogamy leads to differences in parental investment.
Females are born with all the eggs that she will ever have (300), whereas a single male ejaculation contains anywhere from 40-600 sperm.
The reproductive success of a male increases with each female he mates with but for a female, mating with more males does not increase their reproductive success.
Consequence: females become choosier about the males they mate with (inter sexual selection), and males compete for females (intra sexual selection).
What are the two types of sexual selection?
Inter-sexual selection
Intra-sexual selection
what is inter sexual selection?
refers to the strategies that males use to select females, or that females use to select males.
males and females differ in mate selection - different needs rooted in our genetic code.
males and females look for different characteristics in a mate and instinctively behave differently to attract such mates.
Inter-sexual selection → Females
Quality over quantity (ova are rarer than sperm).
Females make a greater investment in time, commitment + other resources during pregnancy + after giving birth to her offspring → makes evolutionary sense for females to be choosier when selecting somebody to reproduce with.
The consequences of a woman choosing the wrong partner to have a baby with are much greater than for a man.
Females optmum mating strategy is to find a genetically fit partner who can provide for her and her baby with resources (money, food, house etc.)
Women seek indicators of socioeconomic status.
Sensitive to cues from a male that he has (or could get) the resources necessary for her survival and the survival of her offspring → the more resources he has, the more he can invest into her child + ensure her genes are passed on.
Inter-sexual selection → Males
Men prioritise physical appearance
Evolved to be responsive to females who are young + attractive → physical cues to a woman’s reproductive value (the more able a woman is to reproduce, the more likely she is to enable the male to pass on his genes).
Males compete for the opportunity to mate with fertile females, hence demonstrate that they are worth mating with.
Singh: waist-hip ratio → what matters in male preference is not female body size as such, but the ratio of waist to hip sizes - males find any waist and hip sizes attractive as long as the ratio of one to the other in 0.7.
Combination of wider hips and narrower waist is attractive because it is an ‘honest signal’ that the woman is fertile and not currently pregnant.
What are the evaluation points for inter-sexual selection
+ Supporting evidence → Buss
+ Buss’s study has high population validity
- Buss’s study may have been confounded by social desirability
+ High face validity
+ Further supporting evidence from Clark and Hatfield
+ Supporting evidence → Buss
A strength of the inter-sexual selection explanation of human reproductive behaviour/partner preferences is that there is evidence to support this theory from Buss.
In an extensive study of 37 cultures (in 33 countries), Buss analysed the results of more than 10,000 questionnaires asking respondents to rate factors such as age, intelligence and sociability for their importance in a sexual partner (in other words, questions related to a variety of attributes which evolutionary theory predicts will be important in relation to partner preference).
Buss found that men valued attractiveness, youth and chastity more than women did and that women were more likely to value good earning potential and high occupational status (a signal of resources that could be invested in offspring).
This is a strength because the evidence provided by Buss supports the theory of inter-sexual selection and that males have a preference for a young and attractive mate, whereas females look for somebody to provide for them.
+ Buss’s study has high population validity
A strength of Buss’s study is that it has high population validity.
Buss’s study used a very large cross cultural sample of 10,000 ppts from 37 cultures in 33 countries.
This is a strength of the study as the findings are representative of large numbers of people from many cultures.
This study therefore provides very reliable evidence to support inter-sexual selection as the same behaviours were found across all cultures (universal) which suggests that mate selection is innate/genetic rather than culturally determined.
- Buss’s study may have been confounded by social desirability
A limitation of Buss’s study is that social desirability may have affected female responses (in particular).
Females may be less likely to want to report finding physical attributes attractive in a potential male partner.
This is a limitation of the study as the findings, at least for female respondents, may not be totally valid reflections of their preferences.
This study therefore may only provide limited evidence to support inter-sexual selection.
+ High face validity
A strength of the inter-sexual selection explanation of human reproductive behaviour/partner preferences is that it has high face validity.
The existence of ‘trophy wives’, ‘gold diggers’, and ‘sugar daddies’ + that females alter their appearance through the use of make-up, cosmetic surgery etc and lie about their age to appear younger and more fertile gives real world support of the validity of inter-sexual selection. In addition, males use deceit to exaggerate their resources to persuade females to mate with them. This indicates that males and females use difference strategies to maximise reproductive potential.
These behaviors support the idea that gender differences in mate choices are valid, as they align with evolutionary explanations.
This therefore provides evidence for evolutionary explanations and suggests that they have high explanatory power.
+ Further supporting evidence from Clark and Hatfield
A strength of inter-sexual selection is further supporting evidence from Clark and Hatfield. Clark and Hatfield sent attractive male and female psychology students across the campus of a university. They approached other students with the question 'I have noticing you around campus. I find you attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’. 75% of the males approached agreed to the request, whereas 0% of females agreed.
This is a strength because it supports female choosiness when selecting a mate as per the inter-sexual selection explanation. Whereas, males opt for a different strategy to ensure reproductive success.
Therefore, this adds further support to the inter-sexual selection theory.
what is intra-sexual selection?
Refers to competition for reproductive success between members of the same sex.
Male to male combat → males compete for access to fertile females.
Competition between the males to be selected by a fertile female → winner of competition gets to reproduce + the characteristics that contributed to his victory are passed on - those that lose out on the mating opportunities do not pass on their ‘losing’ characteristics as they are not selected by the females to mate with).
Behavioural consequences: characteristics that enable a man to outcompete his rivals include deceitfulness, intelligence + aggression →males benefit from behaving aggressively in order to acquire fertile females + protect them from competing males.
Sexual dimorphism - refers to size difference between males and females → males are on average 15% larger than females (naturally bigger + stronger). Larger males are at an advantage when competing, whereas females don’t need to be larger as they don’t have to compete.
Males do have a preference to mate with younger women who appear more fertile, in order to be able to pass on his genes!
Intra sexual selection theory suggest that this size difference has evolved over time as it helps facilitate successful male aggression.
What are the evaluation points for intra-sexual selection?
+ Supporting evidence → Buss + Daly and Wilson
+ Supporting evidence → Buss + Daly and Wilson
A strength of intra-sexual is that there is supporting evidence from Buss + Daly and Wilson.
Buss found that men are significantly more likely than women to make threats of violence towards others who were perceived to have made sexual advances towards their mate. Females in contrast, are more likely to use verbal aggression towards potential rivals. Females often target the attractiveness or the sexual conduct of their competitors in their verbal aggression + appear to aim to reduce their competitors attractiveness in the eyes of the male.
Daly and Wilson found that 90% of all same sex murders involved men at an age when mate competition is most intense and that a large proportion of this violence is connected to sexual rivalry.
This is a strength because it supports the theory of intra-sexual selection and males competing with other males, leading to violence.
Therefore, it provides intra-sexual selection with validity.
What are the general evaluation points for inter and intra sexual selection?
- Cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian women
- Deterministic
- Cannot explain partner preferences of gay men and lesbian women
A limitation of sexual selection theory is that it cannot explain the partner preferences of gay men and lesbian women. This is partly because homosexual relationships do not have reproduction as its primary aim.
Lawson et al looked at personal ads placed by heterosexual and homosexual men and women. These ads described what the person themselves was looking for and what they were offering. They found that the preferences of homosexual men and women differ just as they do in heterosexual men and women. Men emphasises physical attractiveness and women emphasised resources.
This is a limitation because it seems based on this, homosexual men still prioritise physical appearance in their partner and homosexual women still prioritise resources even when they don’t plan on having children.
Therefore, evolutionary explanations may not be a valid explanation of all relationships.
- Deterministic
A limitation of evolutionary explanations of human reproductive behaviour/partner preferences is that it is deterministic.
If sexual selection, human reproductive behaviour + the relationships involved are driven by purely evolutionary considerations, they would be highly predictable. However, with non-heterosexual relationships and the fact that human reproductive behaviour has changed dramatically over the last century, with widespread use of contraception + couples choosing not to have children implies that we have more control (free will) over our behaviour than is implied by the evolutionary approach. Gender differences might stem from cultural traditions rather than being the result of evolved characteristics. The fact that women have been denied economic and political power in many cultures might account for their tendency to rely on the security and economic resources provided by men.
This is a limitation because it shows that mate preferences are the outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences. Evolutionary theory underestimates this impact as it is based upon genetic factors.
Therefore, evolutionary explanations may not be a valid explanation of human reproductive behaviour and partner preferences.
Define parental investment
Refers to any investment by a parent in an offspring that increases the chance that the offspring will survive at the expense of the parents ability to invest in any other offspring (alive or yet to be born).
How can differences in parental investment be used to support inter and intra sexual selection?
Inter-sexual selection → women are the ones choosing a partner amongst the available males (quality over quantity).
Intra-sexual selection → men are competing for access to the most fertile women (because women are choosy as they have high parental investment).
Why do males have low parental investment?
Men have low paternity confidence + they can produce a vast number of offspring in their lifetime. Therefore, it’s not necessary for males to invest heavily in one child. In theory it does not matter if some of his offspring die because, if he has been promiscuous enough, lots will survive + pass on his genes.
As men have low parental investment it makes reproductive sense for males to be promiscuous + to mate with as many females as possible as this provides the best opportunity to ensure his genes are passed on.
Why do females have high parental investment?
Women are 100% certain that the child is theirs as they carry the child for nine months + most women can only have a maximum (but unlikely) 12 pregnancies in their lifetime. Women therefore must invest heavily in their offspring so that the few children that they do have will survive + pass on her genes.
As females have high parental investment, it makes reproductive sense for a woman to be choosy + only mate with a male that she can be sure will provide + protect her and her offspring as this will allow her the best opportunity to make sure her genes will survive.
How are evolutionary theories relating to sexual selection consistent with anisogamy?
Anisogamy refers to differences in male/female sex cells which results in different strategies for reproductive success.
Women must use their gametes wisely; men have many gametes so can be less choosy.
What are the evaluation points for parental investment?
+ Supporting evidence → Clark and Hatfield
- Lacks temporal validity
+ Supporting evidence → Clark and Hatfield
A strength of differences in parental investment is that there is supporting evidence from Clark and Hatfield.
Clark and Hatfield sent attractive male and female Psychology students across the university campus. They approached other students with the question “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”. 75% of the males approached agreed to the request, whereas 0% of females agreed.
This is a strength because the findings suggest that females are choosier than men when it comes to casual sex – arguably because of their higher parental investment. Whereas the males were more laidback when it came to casual sex – arguably because it makes reproductive sense for them to mate with as many females as possible as this will enable more of his genes to be passed on. Evolutionary theory suggests that these behaviours have evolved because males have low parental investment and lack paternity certainty whereas women have both high parental investment and maternity certainty.
Therefore, this adds further support and validity to the theory of differing parental investment.
How can Clark and Hatfield supporting evidence be criticised?
However, the study itself has low population validity as it only used a sample of university students from one university campus.
It could be expected that due to their young age and environment they would be more used to the concept of casual sex + so students may have given a response that doesn’t reflect that of all people.
A limitation of research into parental investment is that it may not be as relevant to today’s society.The results therefore provide only limited evidence for sex differences relating to parental investment
- Lacks temporal validity
A limitation of research into parental investment is that it may not be as relevant to today’s society.
Due to changes in social attitudes, it is now more acceptable for women to be sexually active and to talk freely about sex. Sex is not always directly linked to reproduction as women are now less dependent than previous generations so male resources are less important. Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men. Bereczkei (1997) suggests women no longer have resource orientated mate preferences. Chang (2001) compared partner preferences in China over 25 years, some changed, and others remained the same, changing in line with social changes. In addition to this, access to contraception has clearly had an impact on sexual behaviour.
This is a limitation because the findings of such research might not be relevant today.
Therefore, the results may lack temporal validity and the social and cultural climate should be considered when using evidence to support evolutionary theory.
What is self disclosure?
Revealing personal information about yourself
Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops.
These self-disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts + feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately.
Self-disclosure is the sharing of personal information about the self which leads to increased attraction.
What are the three factors affecting self disclosure?
Social penetration theory
Breadth & depth of self-disclosure
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
What is meant by social penetration theory?
Gradual process of revealing your inner self/deepest thoughts + feelings to someone else.
Involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners.
When one partner reveals some personal information, they are signalling that they trust the person they are self-disclosing to. For the relationship to develop the other partner must do the same in return + reveal sensitive information.
As each partner gradually discloses more and more personal information, they ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives + gain a greater understanding of each other.
SD is a basic feature of romantic relationships + when it begins to occur, it indicates that the new relationship has the potential to last.
What is meant by the breadth and depth of self disclosure?
SD has two elements: breadth and depth → as each of these increases, romantic partners become more attached to each other.
Breadth of disclosure → start of the relationship, we disclose ‘low risk’ information we share with many other people. This is because if we reveal too much about ourselves too soon, this can reduce the attractiveness of a person.
Depth of disclosure → as the relationship develops, SD becomes deeper as we progressively reveal more about ourselves. A wider range of topics are covered as we gradually discuss those things that matter the most to us. ‘High risk’ information such as painful memories, strongly held beliefs + secrets may be discussed.
What is meant by the reciprocity of self-disclosure?
There must be a reciprocal element to ‘high-risk’ self-disclosure. There is an expectation that as one person has begun to self-disclose, particularly if the information is high-risk, there is an expectation that any response will be empathetic + understanding. This increases attraction due to increased intimacy that deepens the relationship making it more likely to be maintained.
What are the evaluation points for self-disclosure?
+ Supporting evidence → Sprecher and Hendrick
- Research evidence is correlational
+ Practical application → improve communication
- Varies depending on how people have met (VR)
+ Supporting evidence → Sprecher and Hendrick
A strength of the role of self-disclosure is that there is supporting evidence from Sprecher and Hendrick (2004).
They conducted a longitudinal study of mainly white, middle class heterosexual dating couples using questionnaires and found strong correlations between several measures of satisfaction and reciprocal self-disclosure. They found both men and women who self disclosed and believed that their partner did likewise were more satisfied with, and committed to, their relationship than those for whom this was not the case.
This is a strength of self-disclosure as it supports its claims.
Therefore, their findings support that self-disclosure plays a large part in relationship satisfaction and adds validity to this claim.
What can be a counterargument to Sprecher and Hendrick’s research?
However, this supporting evidence may be culturally biased as Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied mainly white, middle-class couples in America. However, Tang et al’s (2013) meta-analysis concluded that men and women in the USA (an individualist culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (a collectivist culture). Each of these levels of self-disclosure was linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures suggesting that high levels of sexual self-disclosure are not a key feature of relationships in China but are in the USA.
- Research evidence is correlational
A limitation of self-disclosure is that this research evidence is correlational.
Much self-disclosure research is correlational (such as that of Sprecher and Hendrick 2004) which does not demonstrate causation.
This is a limitation because the evidence does not enable us to conclude self-disclosure causes a partner to be seen as attractive but could be another factor such as perceived similarity. Factors other than high levels of self-disclosure may explain why some romantic relationships are successful + others fail.
Therefore, there is only weak evidence for the social penetration theory of factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships and it is likely that several factors play a role in attraction to a potential partner.
+ Practical application → improve communication
A strength of research into self-disclosure is that it can offer practical applications.
It can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships and strengthen their romantic bond with their partner. Hass and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest self-disclosure maintained and deepened their relationship.
This is a strength because if less-skilled individuals, for instance, those who tend to limit communication to ‘small talk’ can learn to use self-disclosure effectively then this could bring benefits to their relationships in terms of satisfaction.
Therefore, effective applications in relationship counselling suggests that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships and is therefore valid. Such real-life application demonstrates the value of psychological insight.
- Varies depending on how people have met (VR)
A limitation of self-disclosure theory is that self-disclosure varies depending on how people have met.
Research by dating platform eHarmony and the Imperial College Business School found that around a third (32%) of relationships started between 2015 and 2019 started online. Researchers outline that there may be differences in the levels of self-disclosure over the internet compared to face-to-face relationships.
Individuals communicating over the internet are often anonymous, this may lead them to reveal more information about themselves, known as the ‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. When people reveal more information about themselves earlier than they would in a face-to-face interaction, relationships get intense very quickly (boom). However, without a foundation of trust and genuine understanding, the relationship becomes difficult to sustain (bust).
This is a limitation because self-disclosure theory does not consider these relationships that start online and by 2035 if current trends continue, more people will meet their partner online than offline.
Therefore, large numbers of people are being ignored in such theories and self-disclosure differs depending on how the partners have met.
What is physical attractiveness?
A key factor in the formation of romantic relationships.
Term usually applies specifically to how appealing we find another person’s face.
There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive.
There is an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.
What is the halo effect?
Physical attractiveness also matters because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits that attractive people must have, + they are almost universally positive.
This is the physical attractiveness stereotype – Dion (1972) summed this up in the quote “what is beautiful is good”. Dion found that attractive people are consistently rated as kind, sociable, and successful compared to those deemed unattractive physically.
The belief that physically attractive people have these traits makes them more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, and they respond positively back → a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the phrase ‘the halo effect’ to describe how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgement of a person’s other attributes, e.g. their personality.
What are the evaluation points for physical attractiveness
+ Supporting evidence → Eastwick and Finkel
+ Supporting evidence → Meltzer
+ Research support for evolutionary processes
+ Supporting evidence → Eastwick and Finkel
One strength of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction is that there is supporting evidence from Eastwick and Finkel (2008).
Eastwick and Finkel investigated whether physical attractiveness predicts real-life partner choice for both men and women. They conducted a speed-dating study and followed up with participants 30 days later. Before the speed-dating sessions, men stated that physical attractiveness was more important in a partner, while women prioritised earning potential. However, during the actual speed-dating sessions, both men and women were equally influenced by physical attractiveness and earning potential when choosing a partner.
This suggests that physical attractiveness plays a key role in attraction for both genders, rather than being more important for men as traditionally believed. The study strengthens the idea that physical attractiveness is a universal factor in romantic attraction, rather than one that primarily influences male preferences.
Therefore, this research increases the validity of physical attractiveness as a factor in attraction by providing real-life evidence that both men and women consider it important when choosing a romantic partner.
+ Supporting evidence → Meltzer
One strength of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction is that there is supporting evidence from Meltzer et al. (2014).
Meltzer et al. conducted a study investigating the impact of physical attractiveness on marital satisfaction. They found that husbands with more physically attractive wives reported higher relationship satisfaction at the start of their marriage, and this effect persisted for at least the first four years. In contrast, wives’ marital satisfaction was not influenced by their husbands’ physical attractiveness, either initially or over time.
These findings support the idea that men place greater importance on physical attractiveness in a long-term partner compared to women. The fact that only male satisfaction was influenced by their partner’s attractiveness strengthens the argument that physical attractiveness plays a more significant role in male attraction and relationship contentment.
Therefore, this research increases the validity of physical attractiveness as a factor in attraction, particularly supporting the claim that men value physical attractiveness in a partner more than women do.
+ Research support for evolutionary processes
A strength of the role of physical attractiveness is that there is research support for evolutionary processes.
Cunningham et al (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic, and Asian males. The researchers also concluded that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across different societies. Facial symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures.
This is a strength because it shows the importance of physical attractiveness on an evolutionary level – if what is considered attractive is the same across many cultures then it stands to reason that this is evolutionary.
Therefore, physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction has cross cultural validity .
What is the matching hypothesis?
The belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but instead, we tend to look for someone whose level of physical attractiveness matches ours.
When looking for a partner, people first need to evaluate how attractive or desirable they are from the perspective of a potential partner. Based on this, they then choose the best possible partner who is also likely to be interested in them.
By opting for partners of similar physical attractiveness to themselves (‘in their league’) they can maximise their chances of a successful outcome (i.e., not being turned down).
If an individual rates their own attractiveness as 6/10 but then pursues a person who is a 9/10, then they risk rejection, and this does not make evolutionary sense – they will not have the opportunity to reproduce and pass their genes on.
What are the evaluation points for the matching hypothesis?
+ Supporting evidence → Murstein
- Supporting evidence is correlational
- Contradictory evidence → Taylor
- Cultural bias
+ Supporting evidence → Murstein
One strength of the Matching Hypothesis is that there is supporting evidence from Murstein (1972).
Murstein conducted a study to investigate whether partners in established relationships were similar in physical attractiveness. He took separate photographs of each partner and had independent judges rate their attractiveness on a five-point scale. The judges did not know which individuals were real couples. Participants also rated their own and their partner’s attractiveness, and both groups rated a control set of randomly paired 'fake' couples. Murstein found that real-life couples received significantly more similar attractiveness ratings than the randomly paired couples, and partners rated themselves and each other more similarly than random pairings.
These findings support the Matching Hypothesis, as they suggest that individuals tend to form romantic relationships with those who have a similar level of physical attractiveness. This challenges the idea that people simply seek out the most attractive partner and instead supports the notion that we choose partners who are realistically within our own attractiveness range.
Therefore, Murstein’s study increases the validity of the Matching Hypothesis by providing objective, real-life evidence that people match with partners of similar attractiveness, supporting the theory’s explanation of romantic attraction.
What is a counterargument to Murstein’s study?
A limitation of Murstein’s study is that using photographs may reduce internal validity. Two-dimensional images might not accurately reflect real-life attractiveness, as they miss factors like facial expressions and posture. This could have affected the judges' ratings, making couples seem more similar in attractiveness than they actually were. As a result, the study may have overestimated support for the Matching Hypothesis.
- Supporting evidence is correlational
A limitation of Murstein’s study is that it does not establish cause and effect.
The study shows a clear strong positive correlation between the attractiveness ratings of real couples, but it doesn’t prove that physical attractiveness is the only reason relationships are formed. While it suggests that people are likely to form relationships with others of similar attractiveness, it cannot establish that this is the sole factor in relationship initiation.
This is a limitation because attraction involves many factors, not just physical appearance. For instance, a person might compensate for lower attractiveness with qualities like a charming personality or wealth, a phenomenon called “complex matching.”
Therefore, looking at the matching hypothesis alone is too simplistic to explain attraction.
- Contradictory evidence → Taylor
A limitation of the matching hypothesis is that there is contradictory evidence.
Taylor et al. (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site. The researchers found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than themselves – contradicting the matching hypothesis. Researchers found no evidence that daters’ decisions were driven by a similarity between their own and potential partners’ physical attractiveness. Instead, they found evidence of an overall preference for attractive partners.
This is a limitation as this suggests that people do not take their own physical attractiveness into account in the initial stages of attraction, but instead aim for someone more desirable than themselves.
This evidence weakens the validity of the theory and casts doubt on the value of the matching hypothesis in attraction. In addition, this contradictory research was a real-world test of the matching hypothesis and concerned real choices, not just fantasy choices.
- Cultural bias
A limitation of the matching hypothesis theory is that it suffers from cultural bias.
Matching for looks maybe more important in individualistic cultures where couples form the relationship voluntarily and relationships can be temporary. In collectivist cultures where relationships may be arranged and viewed as permanent, greater importance is placed on economic considerations and family alliances.
This is a limitation because the matching hypothesis is better at explaining relationship formation in individualistic cultures rather than collectivist.
Therefore, the matching hypothesis might not be a valid theory of relationship formation in all cultures. It is not a universal theory.
What is the filter theory?
Filter theory is an explanation of relationship formation and factors affecting attraction.
Theory states that a series of factors (also known as filters) progressively limits the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities.
We tend to be attracted by those who pass through a series of filters.
What are the three filters?
Social demography → 1st level of filter
Similarity in attitudes → 2nd level of filter
Complementarity of needs → 3rd level of filter
What is social demography?
Social demography includes factors like location, social class, education, ethnicity, and religion, which affect meeting potential partners.
We are attracted to people with similar characteristics, particularly location, as frequent interactions increase the chance of forming relationships.
The first filtering stage focuses on social factors, as these limit the number of available partners.
Proximity increases accessibility, making it easier to meet and form relationships, while those who are distant or socially different are often ruled out as potential partners
Social demographic factors act as a filter, making relationships more likely between individuals with similar demographic traits.
What is similarity in attitudes?
Partners often share important beliefs + values because the first filter has already narrowed the field to those with similar social and cultural characteristics.
The second filter focuses on psychological characteristics, specifically similarity in attitudes and values, which helps determine relationship compatibility.
Through self-disclosure, individuals assess whether to continue or end the relationship based on shared values.
Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity in attitudes was crucial in the early stages (first 18 months) and was the best predictor of relationship stability.
Agreement on fundamental values promotes deeper communication, increases self-disclosure, and enhances attraction.
Partners with very different attitudes are filtered out as unsuitable for long-term relationships.
We find partners who share basic values attractive (particularly in the initial stages of a relationship) and tend to dismiss those with significantly different attitudes.
What is complementarity of needs?
The final filter assesses complementarity of needs, meaning how well partners meet each other’s needs.
People with different but complementary needs (e.g. the need to care and the need to be cared for) find mutual satisfaction in a relationship.
Finding a complementary partner increases the likelihood of having one’s own needs met.
Example: A young woman lacking financial resources may be attracted to an older man who is financially stable.
Complementarity differs from "opposites attract"—it refers to partners whose needs harmonise rather than conflict.
It enhances relationship stability by making partners feel they complete each other.
What are the evaluation points of the filter theory as a factor affecting physical attractiveness?
+ Supporting evidence → Kerckhoff & Davis
- Contradictory evidence → Levinger
+ Practical application → facilitates predictions
- Lacks temporal validity → filters have changed over time
+ Supporting evidence → Kerckhoff & Davis
A strength of filter theory is that there is supporting evidence from Kerckhoff and Davis (1962).
Kerckhoff and Davis carried out a longitudinal study of dating couples. Both partners in the dating couples completed questionnaires that assessed two main factors - similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Relationship ‘closeness’ was measured using another questionnaire seven months later. The study found that closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for the couples who had been together less than 18 months. For couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness.
This is a strength because it provides evidence that similarity of attitudes/values is important in the early stages of a relationship as outlined by filter theory and that complementarity is important in long term couples as suggested by filter theory.
Therefore, giving validity to filter theory as a factor affecting attraction.
- Contradictory evidence → Levinger
A limitation of filter theory is that its supporting evidence may not be reliable.
Levinger et al. (1970) attempted to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ study using 330 steadily attached couples but found no evidence that similarity in attitudes and values or complementarity of needs influenced relationship progression. They also found no significant link between relationship length and these factors.
Levinger suggested the failure to replicate results was due to changes in social values and courtship patterns, making the original questionnaires outdated. He also criticised the 18-month cut-off, arguing that commitment levels vary—someone in a 6-month relationship could be more committed than someone in an 18-month relationship.
This weakens filter theory’s reliability, suggesting that while it may have been valid in the past, it may no longer be relevant in explaining attraction today.
+ Practical application → facilitates predictions
A strength of filter theory is that the filtering process is important because it allows people to make predictions about their future interactions and so avoid investing in a relationship that ‘won’t work’.
Each person conducts a series of explorations, disclosing bits of information about themselves and making enquiries about the other person. Based on these exchanges, partners may decide to continue with a relationship or decide that it will not work.
This is a strength because individuals may end a relationship before becoming too deeply involved with the other person and in doing so will prevent suffering emotionally if they were to break up further down the line.
Therefore, this suggests that the real value of filtering is that it stops people making the wrong choice and then having to live with the consequences.
- Lacks temporal validity → filters have changed over time
A limitation of filter theory is that the role of the filters has changed over time.
In terms of social demography, online dating apps such as Tinder have increased the field of available partners – location no longer limits partner choice. An individual might start messaging somebody across the country because they like the look of their dating profile. Those who use dating apps might give more importance to the other person’s physical appearance as they can browse through countless profiles of potential partners (regardless of where the person lives). In addition to this, social change has led to relationships that were previously less common, for example partners of different ethnic backgrounds.
This is a limitation because it seems that filter theory, especially social demography is an outdated concept.
Therefore, may lack validity in the 2020s.
What does the theories of romantic relationships include?
Social Exchange Theory
Equity Theory
The Investment Model of Relationships
Duck’s Model of Relationship Breakdown
What is the social exchange theory?
SET explains relationship formation through partners' interactions, shaped by each of their needs + expectations.
People act in self-interest, exchanging rewards (fun, attention, esteem) and costs (time, emotional strain), aiming for more rewards than they invest.
A relationship is satisfying when rewards exceed costs, leading to commitment.
Minimax principle (Thibault & Kelley): People seek to minimise losses and maximise gains in relationships.
Rewards and costs are subjective and can change over time (e.g., texting may start as rewarding but later feel overwhelming).
Comparison Level (CL): The rewards a person believes they deserve are shaped by past relationships and social norms. High self-esteem = higher CL; low self-esteem = lower CL.
Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLA): Weighs if better rewards or fewer costs exist elsewhere (in another relationship or being single). If alternatives seem better, the person may leave.
Relationships succeed when rewards outweigh costs and no better alternatives exist.
Another feature of SET → What are the 4 stages through which relationships develop?
Sampling stage: We explore rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting with them in our own relationships (not just romantic ones), or by observing others doing so.
Bargaining stage: This marks the beginning of a relationship, when romantic partners start exchanging various rewards and costs, negotiating, and identifying what is most profitable.
Commitment stage: As time goes on, the sources of costs and rewards become more predictable, and the relationship becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs decrease.
Institutionalisation stage: The partners are now settled down because the norms of the relationship (rewards and costs) are now established.
What are the evaluation points for SET?
+ Supporting evidence → Sprecher
- Hard to define costs and rewards
- Cultural bias
+ Can explain individual differences in relationships
+ Supporting evidence → Sprecher
A strength of this theory is that there is supporting evidence from Sprecher (2001).
Sprecher (2001) conducted a longitudinal study of 101 dating couples in a US university, they found that the factor most highly associated with relationship commitment was partners’ comparison level for alternatives. The study showed that when the comparison level for alternatives was high (i.e., when they started to consider alternatives), commitment to, and satisfaction with, the current relationship tended to be low. This was the case for both males and females.
This is a strength because Sprecher suggests that this is not surprising as those who lack alternatives are likely to remain committed (and satisfied) and those who are satisfied and committed to their relationship are more likely to devalue alternatives.
Therefore, this supports the SET and provides the theory with validity.
- Hard to define costs and rewards
A limitation of social exchange theory is the confusion of what constitutes a cost and a benefit within a relationship.
What might be considered rewarding to one person (e.g., constant attention and praise) may be punishing to another (e.g., it may be perceived as irritating). In addition, what might be seen as a benefit at one stage of the relationship may be seen as a cost later as partners may redefine something they previously perceived as rewarding or punishing. In addition, SET deals in concepts that are difficult to quantify, psychological rewards are much more difficult to define than financial rewards.
This is a limitation because this suggests that it is difficult to classify all events in such simple terms as ‘costs’ or ‘benefits.
Therefore, this challenges the view that all relationships operate in this way.
- Cultural bias
A limitation of the SET is that it is culturally biased.
The theory implies that we are self-centered and will only maintain romantic relationships if the benefits outweigh the costs. However, not all relationships are voluntary (e.g., some arranged marriages which are based on family alliances). Consequently, it may not be possible for an individual to withdraw from such a relationship even if the perceived costs outweigh the perceived benefits.
This is a limitation because SET might not be a valid theory of relationship maintenance in all cultures.
Therefore, this theory should only be used to explain relationships in an individualistic culture as it would not be valid to try to use it to explain relationships in other cultures where arranged marriages might occur.
+ Can explain individual differences in relationships
A strength of SET is that it can explain individual differences in relationships.
Individuals have different perceptions about how beneficial their current relationship is due to their differing comparison level and comparison level for alternatives. SET explains why an individual may stay in an abusive relationship because the cost of leaving, such as fear, financial problems, losing children is greater than cost of staying e.g., low self-esteem.
This is a strength of the theory because it explains why people maintain a relationship even when the benefits or positive feelings aren't present.
Therefore, SET has high explanatory power as it deals with factors that other theories cannot explain.
What is the equity theory?
Mark scheme: An economic model of relationships based on the idea of fairness for each partner; emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between their cost/effort and their benefit/reward.
Equity Theory is an economic theory of relationships, developed in response to Social Exchange Theory. It focuses on the balance of rewards and costs, rather than just profit.
People feel most comfortable when the benefits they get from a relationship are roughly equal to what they put in (costs).
Unlike Social Exchange Theory, Equity Theory considers the distribution of rewards and costs and the perception of fairness.
Inequity leads to dissatisfaction:
Over-benefitted individuals may feel pity, guilt, or shame.
Under-benefitted individuals may feel anger, sadness, or resentment.
The greater the inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction and motivation to restore balance.
If inequity is perceived, what are the three ways in which people may try to restore it?
Restoration of actual equity – by setting things right themselves or encouraging their partner to do so.
Restoration of psychological equity – convincing themselves that the relationship is fair, even if it isn’t.
Leaving the relationship – if equity can’t be restored, individuals may leave physically (divorce) or emotionally (loss of feelings).
What are the evaluation points of the Equity Theory?
+ Supporting evidence → Stafford and Canary
- Individual differences
- Cultural bias
- Direction of causation
+ Supporting evidence → Stafford and Canary
A strength of equity theory is that there is supporting evidence.
Stafford and Canary had over 200 married couples complete questionnaires measuring equity and relationship satisfaction. The questionnaire assessed their use of relationship maintenance strategies, including assurances (expressing affection and commitment), sharing tasks (such as household chores), and positivity (upbeat communication). Findings showed that satisfaction was highest in equitable relationships, followed by over-benefitted partners, while under-benefitted partners were the least satisfied. Under-benefitted husbands also reported using fewer maintenance strategies. Equitable spouses were generally happier and more likely to maintain fairness in their relationship.
This is a strength because perceived equity is an important determinant of marital satisfaction.
Therefore, this supporting evidence adds validity to the theory.
- Individual differences
A limitation of equity theory is that there are individual differences. The theory of a fair distribution of rewards and costs is too simplistic and not necessarily an important feature in all romantic relationships.
Not everyone experiences the same level of tension when they perceive inequitable relationships. Huseman (1987) identified three categories of individuals: benevolents, equity sensitives and entitleds. Benevolents are ‘givers’ and tend to be more tolerant of under rewarded inequity. Equity sensitives behave in accordance with equity theory, experiencing tension when faced with inequity. Entitleds prefer to be over rewarded, having the attitude that they are owed and are entitled to receive benefits. The concept of ‘equity sensitivity’ determines the extent to which an individual will tolerate inequity.
This is a limitation, because this demonstrates that there are important individual differences in the impact of inequitable relationships.
Therefore, this research challenges the assumptions made by equity theory and weakens the validity.
- Cultural bias
A limitation of equity theory is that there is cultural bias.
Equity may not be as important in non-Western cultures given that most research has been carried out in the US and in Western Europe. Aumer-Ryan (2007) found that there are cultural differences in the link between equity and satisfaction. Couples from an individualist culture (USA) considered their relationships to be the most satisfying when the relationship was equitable. Whereas partners in a collectivist culture (Jamaica) were most satisfied when they were over benefitting. This was true of both men and women so cannot be explained by gender differences.
This is a limitation as it suggests that the theory is limited as it only applies to some cultures.
Therefore, this means that equity theory is limited because it is not a universally valid theory of relationships. It has been proposed by a Western researcher and therefore may be ethnocentric.
- Direction of causation
A limitation of equity theory is that it is unclear the direction of causation. Did the lack of equity lead to dissatisfaction or did dissatisfaction lead to the identification of inequity?
There is some research to suggest that a lack of equity leads to dissatisfaction, but other research shows the opposite direction of cause and effect. Grote and Clark (2001) argue that as soon as partners start monitoring each other’s contributions, this is a sign of dissatisfaction. Once dissatisfaction sets in, partners notice inequities and become even more dissatisfied – a cycle of misery.
This is a limitation because the direction of causation might be wrong.
Therefore, the equity theory itself might not be valid.
What is Rusbult’s Investment Model of Relatiosnhips?
Rusbult’s Investment Model explains why some relationships persist while others end.
Commitment depends on three factors: satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment.
Satisfaction
Based on comparison levels (CL) – partners compare rewards (e.g., support, sex, companionship) and costs (e.g., conflict, anxiety).
A relationship is satisfying if rewards exceed costs and expectations based on past experiences/social norms.
Comparison with Alternatives
Individuals assess if their most important needs could be better fulfilled outside the current relationship (attractive alternative e.g. another partner or being single).
If alternatives seem better, they may leave the relationship.
Investment
Investment = anything lost if the relationship ends (time, energy, shared friends, shared possessions).
Investment size measures resources attached to the relationship that would diminish in value or be lost if it ended.
Examples of investments: time and energy spent, mutual friends, shared belongings.
Higher investment increases dependence on the relationship, as breaking connections would be costly.
Commitment Level
High commitment = high satisfaction + high investment + low quality of alternatives.
Even if satisfaction is low, high investment and lack of alternatives can still maintain a relationship.
Booklet: Commitment level = the likelihood that an individual will persist with their current relationship. It is a product of high satisfaction and investment in the relationship and low quality of alternatives.
What are the evaluation points for Rusbult’s Investment Model of Relationships
+ Research support → Le and Agnew
- Direction of causality might be wrong
+ Real World Application → Explains why people may stay in abusive relationships
- Overlooks future plans
+ Research support → Le and Agnew
A strength of Rusbult’s model is that there is supporting evidence from Le and Agnew.
This study (
meta-analysis) analysed 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1990s, involving over 11,000 participants (54% male, 46% female) from the US, UK, Netherlands, Israel, and Taiwan. It examined key factors of the investment model: satisfaction, alternatives, and investment size. Findings showed that all three factors predicted relationship commitment, but satisfaction had the strongest link to commitment. There was also a strong correlation between commitment and staying or leaving—those more committed were likelier to stay, while less committed individuals were likelier to leave. These patterns held true across genders, cultures, and both heterosexual and homosexual couples, reinforcing the model’s universal validity.
This is a strength because it provides support to Rusbult’s claims using a very large sample size with participants across different cultures.
Therefore, there is some validity to Rusbult’s claim that these factors are universally important features of romantic relationships.
Does Rusbult’s model have high population validity?
Research has supported the relevance of the investment model across different cultures (US, the Netherlands and Taiwan), in a variety of different participant populations e.g., marital, and non-marital relationships, homosexual relationships, friendships and abusive relationships. Rusbult’s theory has been supported by research which has high population validity and can be generalised to a range of different relationships in different cultures. Unlike many other theories it provides insight into the maintenance of homosexual relationships. This provides strong evidence to suggest that investment does play a significant role in the maintenance of a range of different relationships
- Direction of causality might be wrong
A limitation of research into the investment model is that the direction of causality might be wrong.
Strong correlations have been found between all the important factors predicted by the investment model. Most of the studies in Le and Agnew’s meta-analysis were correlational. However, correlations do not allow us to conclude that factors identified by the model cause commitment in a relationship. It could be that the more committed you feel towards your partner, the more investment you are willing to make.
This is a limitation as the research the model is based upon is only correlational and cannot be used to establish cause and effect.
Therefore, it is not clear that the model has identified the causes of commitment rather than factors that are associated with it.
+ Real World Application → Explains why people may stay in abusive relationships
A strength of the investment model is that it has real world applications and can explain why individuals may persist in a relationship with an abusive partner.
Victims of partner abuse experience low satisfaction, which would lead us to predict that they would leave the abusive partner – but many do not leave. The investment model highlights features of the relationship that would explain this. For example, they lack alternatives or may have too much invested with that partner (children, house), making dissolution (separation) too traumatic and costly.
This is a strength because it helps to explain why people might stay in relationships where they are not satisfied or even being abused. The investment model explains why abuse victims do not have to be satisfied with a relationship to stay in it.
Therefore, the model has high explanatory power.
- Overlooks future plans
A limitation of investment model is that it overlooks any future plans that partners have made in the relationship.
There is more to investment than just the resources you have already put into a relationship. For example, in the early stages of a romantic relationship the partners will have made very few actual investments and they may not even live together at this point. In ending a relationship, an individual would not only lose investments made to date, but also the possibility of any investment in the future. Some relationships persist not because of the current balance of investments made, but because of a motivation to see plans work out.
This is a limitation because it is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it fails to recognise the true complexity of the investment and how planning for the future also influences commitment.
Therefore, it is an oversimplistic view of what is meant by an investment.
What is Duck’s Model of Relationship Breakdown
Duck’s model: Relationship breakdown is a process, not a single event, occurring in four phases, each marked by a threshold where perception of the relationship worsens.
Breakup narrative: A breakup makes both partners available for new relationships, prompting them to shape a favorable breakup narrative. They create a story to present themselves positively for future partners. The process begins when one realises their dissatisfaction, triggering the intra-psychic phase.
Phase 1: Intra-psychic Phase
Threshold: “I can’t stand this anymore!” – realisation that change is needed.
Focus on internal thoughts: dissatisfaction, resentment, feeling under-benefitted.
Partner may not express dissatisfaction directly but withdraw socially, write in a diary, or confide in a friend.
Weighs pros and cons of the relationship, considers alternatives (e.g., being alone), and starts planning for the future.
Phase 2: Dyadic Phase
Threshold: “I would be justified in withdrawing.”
Interpersonal conflict: confrontation between partners, discussions about dissatisfaction - can’t avoid talking about their relationship.
Emotions: anxiety, hostility, guilt, and resentment over inequality.
Possible outcomes: attempt to repair relationship or decide to break up.
Self-disclosure increases, and partners consider practical constraints (e.g., children, finances).
Phase 3: Social Phase
Threshold: “I mean it!”
Breakup becomes public – social networks get involved.
Partners seek support and validation, and friends may take sides.
Some hasten the breakup (e.g., revealing secrets), while others try to help repair it.
This phase is often the point of no return.
Phase 4: Grave-Dressing Phase
Threshold: “It’s now inevitable.”
Partners construct justifications for the breakup to maintain a positive self-image.
Public story: blames partner, downplays personal faults to seem trustworthy and loyal for future relationships (attract a new partner).
Private story: reframe memories, e.g., what was once “exciting” is now “irresponsible.” - rewriting history
Final threshold: “Time to move on.”
What are the evaluation points for Duck’s Model of Relationship Breakdown?
- Fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth
+ Offers real life applications to prevent relationship breakdown
- Individual differences in the social phase experienced during the breakup
- Evidence is based on retrospective research
- Fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth
A limitation of Duck’s original model is that it fails to reflect the possibility of personal growth.
Duck (2005) acknowledged that his 1982 model did not address growth following breakdown. This led to the introduction of a new model with a final phase of ‘resurrection processes’. Duck stressed that for many people this is an opportunity to move beyond the distress associated with the ending of a relationship and instead engage in the process of personal growth. Tashiro and Frazier (2003) surveyed 92 undergraduates who had recently broken up with a romantic partner. Respondents typically reported that they had not only experienced emotional distress but also personal growth, as predicted by Duck’s updated model.
This is a limitation of the original model as it failed to consider this very important phase.
Therefore, research support for the existence of this new phase strengthens and gives validity to the updated model.
+ Offers real life applications to prevent relationship breakdown
A strength of Duck’s model is that it offers real life applications to prevent relationship breakdown.
Duck’s model highlights the role of communication in relationship breakdowns. The way individuals discuss their relationship can provide valuable insights into its state. In the intra-psychic phase, repair may involve re-evaluating the partner’s behaviour more positively. In later stages, different repair strategies become relevant; for instance, during the social phase, external support from friends or family may help resolve conflicts.
This is a strength because it suggests that different stages provide different opportunities to prevent the relationship breaking down.
Therefore, giving the theory positive practical applications and preventing people going through emotional suffering.
What is a counterargument to the above point?
The model is based on research from individualist cultures (USA). According to Moghaddam (1993) relationships in individualist cultures are generally voluntary and frequently come to an end. But relationships in collectivist cultures are more likely to be obligatory, less easy to end and involve the wider family. This means the model’s application would not be useful in all cultures.
- Individual differences in the social phase experienced during the breakup
A limitation of this theory is that there are individual differences in the social phase experienced during breakup.
For teenagers and young adults, relationships are often viewed as "testing grounds" for future long-term commitments. As a result, while they may receive sympathy from friends and family, there is little effort to encourage reconciliation, as the mindset tends to be that there are "plenty more fish in the sea." In contrast, older individuals in long-term relationships may feel they have fewer opportunities to find a new partner, making the consequences of a breakup more significant. This suggests that, for this age group, the social phase is more likely to involve active efforts from others to help salvage the relationship.
This is a limitation because the theory doesn’t apply to all relationships.
Therefore, the validity of the social phase varies by type of relationship and the age of the individuals in that relationship.
- Evidence is based on retrospective research
A limitation of Duck’s model is that the evidence is based on retrospective research.
Participants typically share their experiences of a breakup after the relationship has ended. Since studying relationship breakdown in real time would be unethical due to participants' emotional vulnerability, research is often conducted retrospectively. However, this approach can affect the accuracy of findings, as memories may be distorted or incomplete. Early stages of the breakup, in particular, are more likely to be misremembered or overlooked in self-reported data.
This is a limitation because if the research is carried out using self-report retrospective data than the theories based on such research may not be valid as it is difficult to assess their objectivity and accuracy.
Therefore, some of Duck’s research is based on limited evidence which means it may be an incomplete description of how relationships end and therefore lack validity.
What are virtual relationships?
Non-physical interactions between people communicating via social media. Researchers have turned their attention to the role of self-disclosure in social media based relationships.
E.g. Research by dating platform eHarmony and the Imperial College Business School found that around a third (32%) of relationships started between 2015 and 2019 started online. By 2035 if current trends continue, more people will meet their partner online than offline.
What is self disclosure?
Revealing personal information about yourself to another individual.
Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops.
These self-disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately.
Psychologists are interested in determining whether self-disclosure differs between VR and FtF relationships.
What are the two contrasting theories on how self-disclosure operates in virtual relationships?
Reduced Cues Theory
The Hyperpersonal Model
What is the Reduced cues theory?
Negative effects of deindividuation and disinhibition
Lee Sproull and Sara Keisler argue that VR are less effective than FtF ones because they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions.
E.g. VR lack non-verbal cues to our emotional state such as facial expression and tone of voice.
This leads to deindividuation because it reduces people’s sense of individual identity → this may encourage disinhibition and the use of blunt and even aggressive communication.
The outcome of this process is a reluctance to SD.
Individuals will be less likely to initiate a relationship with someone who is so impersonal or offensive.
What is the Hyperpersonal Model?
Walther → selective self-presentation
VR can be more personal and involve greater SD than FtF ones.
This is because in VR, can develop very quickly + SD happens earlier, and once established, they are more intense and intimate.
There are two key features of hyperpersonal SD in personal relationships:
The sender of a message has greater control over what to disclose and the cues they send than in FtF interactions. This is selective self-presentation. The sender manipulates their self-image to present themselves in an idealised way. To achieve this, self-disclosures can be intensely truthful (hyperhonest) and/or intensely false (hyperdisonest).
The receiver of the messages gains a positive impression of the sender, they may give feedback (e.g., responding to an Instagram post) that reinforces the sender’s selective self presentation (e.g. “Wow you look like a really confident person”).
What is anonymity in virtual relationships?
Anonymity in VR has been used to explain higher levels of SD in VR compared to FtF relationships.
The danger of SD in FtF interactions is that confidentiality might be violated, or the other person might respond negatively to the disclosure, including ridicule or rejection.
SD’s with online acquaintances are like the ‘strangers on a train’ phenomenon in which we are more likely to disclose personal information to people we don’t know and probably will never see again.
The stranger does not have access to an individual’s social circle; therefore, the confidentiality problem is less of an issue.
What are the effects of absence of gating in FtF relationships?
A ‘gate’ is any obstacle to forming a relationship.
FtF interactions are gated → they involve many features that can interfere with the early development of a relationship.
In FtF relationships, personal factors e.g. physical appearance and mannerisms tend to determine who we approach and who we develop romantic relationships with.
We use available features such as attractiveness, age, or ethnicity to categorise potential partners before deciding about whether we would like a relationship with that person.
In online relationships, who is there an absence of these barriers or ‘gates’ that normally limit the opportunities for?
The less attractive
Individuals with physical anomalies
Individuals with speech defects
Shy or less socially skilled to form relationships in face-to-face encounters.
Being in a different age group or social background.
Note 
Flashcard (127)