Studied by 0 people
The nature of sexual selection
Attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are based on:
Attractive characteristics
Characteristics that provide an advantage over competitors for reproductive rights
Anisogamy
Differences in sexual selection strategies between males and females arise as they are subject to different selective pressures due to anisogamy.
The differences between male and female sex Cells
Male gametes are small, mobile and occur in vast numbers
Females gametes are large, static and occur in intervals
A consequence of anisogamy for mate selection is that there is no shortage of fertile males, but a fertile woman is a ‘rare’ resource
Anisogamy is important in partner preference because it gives rise to two different mating strategies- Intrasexual Selection and Intersexual selection
Intrasexual selection
Intrasexual selection refers to strategies that members of one sex use to compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex.
This is the preferred strategy for males (quantity over quality)
Whatever traits lead to successful mating in these contests will be passed on to the next generation.
A male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many females as possible
A behavioural consequence of this competition for fertile mates is a distinct preference for youth, and a sensitivity to the indicators of youth and fertility.
This strategy has led to dimorphism (‘two forms’) - males and females end up looking very different because of intrasexual selection.
There are also behavioural consequences. For example, deceitfulness, intelligence and aggression may allow a male to outcompete his rivals, leading to the selection of these characteristics which are then passed on.
Intersexual selection
The strategies used to select partners of the opposite sex. This is the preferred strategy for females.
The preferences determine the areas in which the opposite sex must compete.
These indicators become signals to the opposite sex that they have “good genes” likely;
a) to produce successful offspring
b) to be able to give protection and support to offspring.
Trivers (1972) stated that females make a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during, and after the birth of her offspring.
Although both sexes are choosy, the consequences of selecting the wrong partner are more serious for females, so they need to be especially selective.
Therefore, the female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who can provide resources.
Sexual selection and long term mate preference
AO3 Evaluation: theories on sexual selection
Buss (1989):
Study involving 10,000 people from 37 widely diverse cultures. A survey was presented to participants in which they were asked to rate traits of their perfect partner. The following was found;
100% of countries demonstrated that men prefer women younger than themselves, which supports the idea that men prefer youth and fertility (Intrasexual selection)
97% of countries demonstrated that women, more than men, value earning potential, which supports the idea that women prefer men with financial ambition and good resources
Other observations: men are concerned with physical attractiveness and both males and females desire characteristics such as intelligence, kindness and dependability
AO3 Evaluation: theories on sexual selection
Clark and Hatfield (1989)
Conducted a study to investigate the differences in reproductive behaviour between men and women. Attractive male and female experiments approached total strangers on a university campus and asked them a series of questions:
“Would you go on a date with me?”
“Would you go back to my apartment?”
“Would you have sex with me?”
Results:
How does this support the idea of intersexual selection?:
Females take more time into choosing mates over males
These results have been replicated in other studies and seem to provide compelling evidence that men have evolved psychological mechanisms to ensure success in short-term mating – these include;
a) a desire for sexual variety,
b) the tendency to let little time elapse before seeking sex and
c) a willingness to consent to sex with strangers.
AO3 Evaluation: theories on sexual selection
Biological Reductionism
Only reason for mate choice is anisogamy. This is ignoring any other factors that influence mate choice. This also ignores any social or cultural factors. For example, Bereczkei et al. (1997) argue that females may no longer be resource-oriented due to women’s greater role in the workplace (and therefore are less dependent on men). Theories that don’t take into account these influences are limited in their usefulness
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 and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately”
This plays a vital role beyond initial attraction and, used effectively, can help the course of true love run smoother.
Social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor 1973)
A theory of how relationships develop. Relationships develop through the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else and involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners. As partners disclose more and more information, they ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives, and gain a greater understanding of each other.
Breadth and depth
Self disclosure has two elements - breadth and depth. As both of these increase, romantic partners become more committed. De-penetration describes how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship.
Reciprocity
Reis and Shaver (1988) suggest that for a relationship to develop, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure, as well as the breadth and depth. Once you have disclosed something, hopefully your partner will respond in a way that is rewarding, with empathy and their own thoughts/feelings. A balance of self disclosure increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship
AO3 Evaluation: Self disclosure
Supporting evidence- Sprecher et al (2013) looked at the effects of self-disclosure reciprocity (vs. non-reciprocity) on liking in initial encounters. Involved pairs of unacquainted individuals participating in a structured self-disclosure activity. Participants in some pairs took turns asking and answering questions in two interactions (reciprocal disclosure). In other pairs, participants either disclosed or listened in an initial interaction (non-reciprocal disclosure) and then switched disclosure roles in a second interaction. Participants who disclosed reciprocally reported greater liking, closeness, perceived similarity, and enjoyment of the interaction after the first interaction than participants who disclosed non-reciprocally. These differences remained after the second interaction, even though participants in non-reciprocally disclosing dyads switched roles (i.e., the disclosures became listeners) and therefore experienced extended reciprocity. Concluded that turn-taking self-disclosure reciprocity in the acquaintance process increases the likelihood of positive outcomes (e.g., liking).
Real world application- Romantic partners probably use self disclosure deliberately to increase intimacy. Hass & Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationships. Partners who limit communication to small talk can learn to use self disclosure to have more satisfied relationships
Cultural differences- Type of self disclosure can vary according to culture. Tang et al. (2013) reviewed research into self disclosure and concluded that in the USA (individualist culture) more sexual thoughts and feelings are disclosed than in China (collectivist culture) for both males and females. There was no difference in levels of satisfaction. Theory is limited as it is based in findings from western cultures – not necessarily generalisable to others
Physical attractiveness
“Refers to how appealing we find a person’s face. There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive, and an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available”
This is the physical attractiveness stereotype, a widely accepted view of attractive people which is summed up in a phrase coined by (Dion 1972)- “What is beautiful is good”
Physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to unattractive people.
Halo effect
Traits associated with attractiveness act as indications of good health. Therefore, choosing an attractive partner is the best way of ensuring a healthy partner and a healthy child
Perceived health is important for two reasons:
that partner is going to be physically able to bear children (women) or provide for the family (men)
there is a good chance that the genes that they carry will produce healthy offspring.
The matching hypothesis
Suggests we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness instead of choosing the most appealing
In order to do this, we have to make a judgement about our own ‘value’
We compromise on our choice of partner - to avoid rejection by a perfect partner, we settle for someone who is on a similar level to us
We look for someone who matches our physical attractiveness, intelligence, social status, etc.
Couples who are matched are more likely to have happy, enduring relationships than couples who are mismatched.
Walster et al Computer dance study (1966)
Procedure:
752 students were invited to attend a dance party
Ppts were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers and also completed a questionnaire about themselves before the dance
Ppts were told this information would be used by a computer to decide their partner for the evening. However, they were actually paired randomly
During the dance, and 4-6 months after, ppts were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them
Findings:
The hypothesis was not supported
Ppts expressed a higher appreciation of their partner if their partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness
However, Berscheid et al. (1971) replicated the study but allowed ppts to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness. Ppts tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
Conclusion:
We seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
Choice of partner is a compromise - we sett
AO3 EVALUATION: Physical attractiveness
Supporting evidence (Palmer & Peterson 2012)- Found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This halo effect persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.This has implications for the political process as it suggests there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office because they are considered more physically attractive.
Contradictory evidence (Taylor et al 2011)- Conducted a real-world test of the matching hypothesis by studying the activity logs of a popular online dating site. They focused on who individuals actually contacted, and not just preferences. The study found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them. This undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis because it contradicts the central prediction about matching attractiveness.
Individual differences- Towhey (1979) gave males and females a set of photos and biographical information about people, and asked them to judge how much they would like a target individual based on the photograph. The participants also completed a questionnaire – the MACHO scale – designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours. Towhey found that the participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were significantly more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgements of likeability. Low scorers on the MACHO scale were less influenced or not influenced by physical attractiveness when making their judgement.
Nomothetic vs Idiographic- The theory is based on a nomothetic approach to studying human behaviour. It attempts to generate behavioural laws that apply to all people. However, as shown by Towhey (1979) there are individual differences in the importance of physical attractiveness. Therefore, taking an idiographic approach may be more appropriate for studying romantic relationships.
Cultural differences- Research shows that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures. Cunningham (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. The physically attractive stereotype is culturally pervasive. Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly. It seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures.
Field of availables and desireables
Available’s- everyone who we potentially could form a relationship with
Desirables- People who share similar attitudes, values and interests
Our field of availables is narrowed down to our field of desirables through three main factors which act as filters.
Filter theory (Kerchoff and Davis 1962)- 1st Filter
1st Filter: Social Demography
We only meet a very small fraction of people living in our area (proximity filter). Factors that influence the chances of potential partners meeting each other in the first place include;
Geographical location
Level of education
Social class
Ethnic group
Meaningful and memorable interactions are with those who are nearby – accessibility is the key benefit (less effort!). Our realistic field of potential partners is narrowed by our social circumstances. Anyone who is too ‘different’ is discounted, so homogamy is created – we are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is culturally and socially similar to us.
Filter theory (Kerchoff and Davis 1962)- 2nd Filter
2nd Filter: Similarity in attitudes
Most of those we meet tend to be of a similar social class, education level and maybe even the same ethnicity or racial group. Partners will often share important beliefs and values, partly because the field of availables has already been narrowed by the first filter to those who have significant social and cultural characteristics in common.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships but only for couples who had been together less than 18 months.
There is a need for partners in the early stages of a relationship to agree over basic values, the things that really matter to them.
This encourages greater and deeper communication, and promotes self-disclosure
What is the law of attraction?
if an initial similarity does not exist, for example, it turns out that the partners have very little in common after all, then they may go out a few times, but the relationships is likely to fizzle out
Filter theory (Kerchoff and Davis 1962)- 3rd Filter
3rd Filter: Complementarity of needs
The chances of a short term relationship becoming more permanent depends most on shared beliefs and values, and personality variables. The ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs.
Two partners complement each other when they have the traits that the other lacks.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) found the need for complementarity was more important for long term couples.
In other words, at a later stage of a relationship, opposites attract.
Complementarity is attractive because it gives two romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole, which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish.
AO3 EVALUATION: Filter theory
Supporting Evidence- Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) Conducted a longitudinal study with 94 students comparing those in a short-term relationship (less than 18 months) with those in a long-term relationship (more than 18 months). Ppts completed questionnaires to assess similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Relationship ‘closeness’ was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later. Closeness was associated with similarity of values but only in short-term relationships. Closeness was associated with complementarity of needs in long-term relationships
Levinger (1974) suggested that social changes and problems in defining the depth of a relationship in term of its length undermine the validity of this research
Lack of temporal validity- The role of filters have changed over time. The use of online dating and apps has increased the field of availables, and means location (first filter) no longer limits partner choice. Social changes have also led to relationships that were less common 30 years ago, e.g. between different ethnic backgrounds (social demography)
Reductionist- too simplistic to suggest that long term relationship success is a result of just three filters and limits the range of real-life relationships that can actually be explained by the theory. Anderson (2003) argues that cohabiting partners become more similar over time whereas Kerckhoff & Davis suggest that similarity causes the closeness. These findings may only be correlational and not causality.
Social Exchange Theory- Thibaut and Kelly 1969
Rewards, costs and profits:
An economic theory which suggests that we form a relationship if it is rewarding
We wish to maximise rewards from a relationship (eg. love, sex, companionship, support) & minimise costs (time, effort, money spent, opportunities lost, risk involved)
The goal is to achieve a situation of profit: where rewards exceed the costs
Rewards – Cost = Outcome
Comparison level (CL):
Based on an individual’s ideas of how much they deserve to receive
It is subjective and based on previous experiences and our expectations
A relationship is worth pursuing if the CL is equal to or higher than our previous experience
Comparison level for alternatives (CLA):
We weigh up the potential increase in rewards from an alternative partner against any costs associated with ending the current relationship
If our current relationship is more profitable, we will stick to it
If the rewards from a potential new relationship outweigh the costs of ending the current one, the current relationship will be terminated
Stages of relationships development- social exchange theory
Sampling- We consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time.
Bargaining- We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.
Commitment- The relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs.
Sampling- We consider the potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with other relationships available at the time.
Bargaining- We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile.
Commitment- The relationship increases in predictability so each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers costs.
Insitutalisation- The relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.- The relationship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner.
AO3 EVALUATION: Social exchange theory
Research evidence (Kurdek and Schmitt 1986)- 185 couples - 44 heterosexual married; 35 heterosexual cohabiting; 50 same-sex male; 56 same-sex female. All couples living together with no children. Completed questionnaires measuring relationship commitment and SET variables. Partners who were the most committed also perceived the most rewards and fewest costs, as well as viewing alternatives as less attractive. This demonstrates the validity of the theory in same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples
Reductionist- assumes all relationships are exchange based. Also, assumes that all relationships are economic in nature and oversimplifies complex romantic relationships. One argument is that romantic partners do not ‘keep score’ because if they did it would undermine trust
Direction of cause & effect- Claims that dissatisfaction only arises after a relationship stops being profitable. An alternative explanation suggests we do not consider alternatives until after we are dissatisfied
Vague concepts- SET deals in concepts that are vague and hard to quantify. While research has superficially defined ‘rewards’ and ‘costs’, real world rewards and costs are subjective and hard to define. It is also unclear how a comparison level works. This makes the theory difficult to test in a valid way
Equity theory (Walster 1978)
Maximising rewards and minimising costs are important but SET fails to take into accounts the need most people have for equity in a relationship.
The term ‘equity’ doesn’t mean ‘equality’ in this theory. It stands for fairness.
What matters most with equity is that both partners' levels of ‘profit’ (rewards minus costs) are roughly the same.
Equity and Equality
Inequity has the potential to cause distress. This happens when one person gives a great deal and gets little in return. However the same is true of those who receive a great deal and give little in return.
Over benefitting and under benefitting are both examples of inequity although it’s the under benefitting partner who is going to feel the greatest satisfaction, in the form of anger, hostility and resentment
The over benefitting person will likely feel guilt, shame and discomfort. Thus satisfaction is about perceived fairness.
It’s not the size or amount of the rewards and costs that matter – it’s the ratio of the two to each other.
Consequences of inequity
Problems arise when one partner puts in a great and gets little from it. A partner who is a subject of inequity will become distressed and dissatisfied with the relationship if it continues in this way.
The greater the perceived inequity, the greater the dissatisfaction: equity theory predicts a strong correlation between the two.
This applies to both the under benefitted and over benefitted partners.
Dealing with inequity
Restoration of actual equity- The under benefitted partner will be motivated to make the relationship more equitable as long as they believe it is possible to do so, and the relationship is salvageable. The more unfair the relationship feels, the harder they will work to restore equity.
Restoration of perceived equity- However, the outcome may be cognitive rather than behavioural. The under benefitted partner may revise their perceptions of rewards and costs so that the relationship feels more equitable, even if nothing changes.
AO3 EVALUATION: Exchange theory (Walster 1978)
Supporting Research- Utne et al. (1984) carried out a survey of 118 recently married couples, measuring equity with two self-report scales. Participants were aged between 16 and 45 years and had been together more than 2 years before marrying. Couples who considered their relationship equitable were more satisfied than those who saw themselves as over benefitting or under benefitting.
Cultural differences- Moghaddam (1998) suggests that such ‘economic’ theories only apply to Western relationships and even then only to certain short-term relationships among individuals with high mobility. One group of people who fit this description are students in Western societies. They are typically very mobile and experience many short-term romantic relationships. Where there is little time to develop long-term commitment, it makes sense to be concerned with give-and-take. However, long-term relationships within other less mobile population groups, particularly in non-traditional societies, are more likely to value security than personal profit.
Individual differences- Not all partners in romantic relationships are concerned about achieving equity. Huseman (1987) suggests that some people are less sensitive to equity than others. Benevolents – those who are prepared to contribute more to the relationship than they get out of it. Entitleds - those who believe they deserve to over benefit and accept it without feeling distressed or guilty.
Rusbult’s investment model of relationships
According to Rusbult (2011) commitment to a relationship depends on three different factors:
Satisfaction Level
Comparison with Alternatives
Investment Size
Factor 1- Satisfaction Level
We develop a standard which we compare all our relationships against.
It is formed based on all of our experiences plus our views of what we might exchange from a particular exchange (our comparison level).
If we judge the potential profit of a new relationship to exceed our CL, the relationship will be judged as worthwhile. If the outcome is negative (profit less than CL) we will be dissatisfied in the relationship.
Factor 2- Comparison with Alternatives
We have a ‘Comparison Level for Alternatives’ where we weigh up a potential increase in rewards from a potential partner, minus any costs involved in ending our current relationship. An alternative may also be having no relationship at all
Factor 3- Investment
Investment= “anything a person puts into a relationship that will be lost if they leave it”. This may include things such as possessions, children’s welfare and emotional energy
Rusbult (1983) found that when people were deciding whether to end a relationship, not only did they weigh up the rewards and the costs of the relationship and possible alternatives available to them, but they also considered how much they had invested in the relationship.
Intrinsic Investment – any resources put directly into a relationship
E.g. money, possessions, energy, emotion, self disclosure
Extrinsic Investment – and resources that didn’t feature before but are now closely associated with the relationship
E.g. mutual friends, memories, children
So if the partners in the relationship experience high levels of satisfaction (because they are getting high levels of rewards and low costs), and the alternatives are less attractive and their investment in the relationship is increasing, then we can confidently predict that the partners will be committed to the relationship.
Satisfaction vs Commitment
Commitment= The likelihood that involvement will persist. Commitment is high with high levels of satisfaction and anticipation of high levels of loss (investments high and quality of alternatives low). Commitment is a consequence of increasing dependence.
Rusbult argues that the main psychological factors that causes people to stay in a relationship is not satisfaction but commitment.
This is an important distinction because it can help explain why dissatisfied partners will stay in a relationship – because they are committed to their partner. That’s because they have made an investment that they do not want to see go to waste. Therefore they will work hard to maintain and repair a damaged relationship, especially when it hits a rough patch.
Relationships maintenance mechanisms
There are a number of mechanisms used to promote relationship maintenance when a partner is dissatisfied but it all depends on how committed the partners are.
Accommodation
Willingness to Sacrifice
Forgiveness
Positive Illusions
Ridiculing Alternatives
Enduring partners act in a way to promote the relationship (accommodation). They will put their partner's interests first (willingness to sacrifice), and forgive them for any serious offences (forgiveness).
There is also a cognitive element to relationship maintenance and repair. Committed partners think about other and potential alternatives in a specific and predictable way. They are unrealistically positive about their partner to their face and to others (positive illusions), and negative about tempting positives and other people’s relationships (ridiculing alternatives), much more so than less committed partners.
AO3 EVALUATION: Investment model of relationships
Supporting research- Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies from the late 1970s to 1999 which included around 11,000 participants from five countries. They found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment size all predicted relationship commitment. Relationships in which commitment was greatest were the most stable and lasted longer. This was true for both men and women, across all cultures, and for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
Explains abusive relationships- The investment model is thought to be a particularly valid and useful explanation of relationships involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Rusbult and Martz (1995) applied the investment model to abusive relationships. They asked women living in refuges why they had stayed with their abusive partners instead of leaving them as soon as the abuse began. As predicted by the model, women had felt the greatest commitment to their relationship when their economic alternatives were poor and their investment was great. Investments (time and effort) were the most important predictor of whether to stay with a violent partner. Satisfaction alone cannot explain why people stay in relationships.
Oversimplifies Investment- There is more to investment than the resources you have already put in. Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) included investments that partners can make in their future plans. The model fails to recognise the true complexity of investment and how planning for the future influences commitment.
Note
Flashcard