Relationships key terms

Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour

anisogamy

form of sexual reproduction that involves the union or fusion of two gametes that differ in size and/ or form

male gametes

small, mobile, and occur in vast numbers

female gametes

large, static and occur in intervals

another name for intrasexual selection

mate competition

intrasexual selection

traits or behaviours that have evolved to help an individual in competing against others from the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex

examples of traits or behaviours in intrasexual competition

stronger and taller

what mates are males attracted to

youthful as this is a distinct sign of fertility

males optimum reproductive strategy

mate with as many females as possible

another name for intersexual competition

mate choice

intersexual selection

where individuals compete to be chosen by the opposite sex as a mate and certain traits become favoured as they can become indicators to the opposite sex that they have ‘good genes’

what do these ‘good genes’ demonstrate

the ability to reproduce offspring or provide support

females are more attracted to…

mates who can provide for a child so have more resources

why is intersexual selection sometimes referred to as female choice

because of greater investment of time, energy, and resources required from female to raise a child therefore they need to be more careful when choosing a partner

what did Buss do and investigate

the difference in mating strategies, surveyed over 10,000 adults in 37 cultures and asked them to rate traits of their perfect partners

findings of Buss

• 97% women, more than men, value earning potential

• 92% men, more than women, value physical attributes

• 100% men prefer women younger than themselves

what does Buss support

intersexual selection

what did Clark and Hatfield investigate

differences in reproductive behaviour between men and Women

procedure of Clark and Hatfield

Attractive male and female experimenters approach strangers on a uni campus and said hw they had noticed them and found them attractive, then asked them a series of questions

results for men in Clark and Hatfield

• would you go on a date with me? 50%

• Would you go back to my apartment? 69%

• Would you have sex with me? 75%

results for women in Clark and Hatfield

• Would you go on a date with me? 50 %

• Would you go back to my apartment? 6%

• Would you have sex with me? 0%

How does Clark and Hatfield’s research support the theory of intersexual selection

shows that females are more particular about what they want in a partner due to greater investment of time, energy, and resources when raising a child. Therefore less likely to be spontaneous in there picking and will look for more serious connections

issue and debate of evolutionary explanations

biological reductionism - they argue that strategies for choosing a mate are the result of genetic inheritance and a string for reproductive success. not always straight forward, individual differences in partner’s choice play a huge part.

temporal validity - doesn’t account for homosexual relationships where a choice of partner doesn't not result in reproductive success, so doesn’t have evolutionary advantage

self-disclosure

deliberately revealing significant info about oneself that would not normally be known by others

why is using self-disclosure showing vulnerability

comes with a risk because you are sharing info that can open you up to rejection by others, them gaining power, and other revealing that info about you

factors to self disclosure

breadth, depth, time, and duration

when and who developed social penetration theory

in 1973 by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor

social penetration theory

claims that communication goes from superficial to deeper and more meaningful as relationships develop over time

social penetration theory is often compared to an…

onion (first few layers easy to peel off, and inner layers being thick and harder to peel)

stages of social penetration theory

1. orientation - shadow info, bond is new and unfamiliar, social desirability

2. exploratory affective exchange - sharing slightly more social norms and behave accordingly but as bond grows more info is disclosed

3. affective exchange - casual banter, presence of comfort and friendliness

4. stable exchange - honesty, openness and intimacy, personal and intimate details

breadth in self-disclosure

number of topics discussed e.g occupation, commute, films

depth in self-disclosure

level of intimacy in the conversations e.g feelings around break ups, job losses, and death

norm of reciprocity in self-disclosure

norm states that when an individual shares something about their life, the other person feels the need to reciprocate and share something about theirs

evaluation of self-disclosure

• research support - Laurenceau et al where pps were asked to write down daily diary entries of progress in their relationships. found that self-disclosure and perception of self-disclosure led to greater feelings of intimacy within a couple. when couples lacked intimacy they often lacked self-disclosure

• nomothetic - ignores many other factors influencing relationships such as cultural practice and personality. ignores other factors like physical attractiveness, similarity of attitudes and complementarity. could benefit from employing idiographic research techniques/studies as well

• cultural differences - based on western, individualist cultures may not apply to collectivist. e.g Tang et al found that men and women in the US tend to disclose more sexual thoughts/feelings than romantic partners in China, but level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures. therefore to a requirement for successful relationship.

why may physical attractiveness matter

because of preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people must have, almost universally positive

the halo effect

physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong successful compared to unattractive people. belief that good looking people have some of these characteristics makes them more attractive to us and causes people to behave more positively to them.

matching hypothesis theory

people tend to choose romantic partners who are roughly similar attractiveness to each other

why do people choose others of similar attractiveness

in order to handle rejection we compromise and value ourselves in order to pick the person who is the best we feel we can get

Walster computer dance study

suggests we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (also personality) instead of choosing most appealing.

Elain Walster et al computer dance study procedures

invited male and female students to a dance. they were rated on physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start and complete a personal questionnaire. they were told all that info was used to decide their partner for the evening by a computer (but it was actually random)

findings of Elain Walster et al

the hypothesis was not supported because the most liked partners were also most physically attractive rather than own level of attractiveness being taken into account

contrasting research to Elain Walster

Ellen Berscheid et al

Ellen Berscheid et al

replicated Walster’s study but each pps were able to select their partner from varying degrees of attractiveness and found that participants tended to choose partners who matched in physical attractiveness

evaluation of physical attractiveness

• research support/ challenge - Elain Walster (support) and Ellen Berscheid et al (challenge)

• nomothetic vs idiographic - the matching hypothesis is based on a nomothetic approach to studying human behaviour, tries to generate behavioural laws but Walster and Berscheid’s research suggest there are significant individual differences. therefore idiographic research may be more useful.

physical attractiveness

the halo effect and matching hypothesis

what does filter theory encompass

1. social demography

2. similarity in attitudes

3. complementarity of needs

field of availables

everyone you could potentially form a relationship with (must filter out, as won’t find everyone attractive)

field of desirables

(what you filter down to) people who share certain factors like values, interests, and attitudes. As well as you finding them attractive

1. social demography

factors influencing the possibility of finding a potential partner: geographical location, level of education, social class, and ethnic group. realistic fields of partners are narrowed as accessibility makes it much easier. forming connections with people who are socially and culturally similar to us

2. similarity in attitudes

usually share important beliefs and values, due to field of availables narrowing potential partner selection to only those who have similar social and cultural characteristics.

what did Kerckhoff and Davis say about similarity in attitudes

similar attitudes are vital to the development of romantic couples who had only been together less than 18 months. during the early stages a certain level of agreement is required to encourage better communication and self-disclosure

3. complementarity of needs

meet each other’s needs, and should compliment each other, and have the traits the other lacks

what did kerckhoff and Davis found about complimentarily of needs

it was more important for long term couples, and is attractive because gives romantic partners the feeling that they form as a whole together adding to the depth of the relationship

evaluation of filter theory

Research support - Kerchkoff and Davies using 94 students, comparing short term (under 18 months) and long term (over 18 months). Collected data through self-reports. Similarity of attitudes found to be the most important factor in short term and complementarity in long term

Lack of temporal validity - predictions don’t hold up over time, with the rise of the internet and dating apps. the importance of some social and demographic variables may have reduced e.g proximity less of an issue social media as well as cross cultural relationships being more commonplace. less applicable in 21st century.

Reductionist - complex phenomenon like romantic relationships on the application of a series of filters is reductionist. e.g doesn’t explain why people stay a long time in abusive relationships despite a lack of complementarity. Suggests a holistic approach may be better suited in explaining the complexity of relationships maintenance

who proposed the social exchange theory

Thibault and Kelley (1959)

social exchange theory

we set up and stay in a relationship if its rewarding (the theory encompasses rewards, costs, profits; comparison level and comparison level of alternatives)

rewards, costs, profits

we wish to maximise rewards from a relationship (e.g love, companionship, sex) and minimise costs (time, effort, money spent, lost opportunities). the rewards - costs = outcome. the desire is to have more rewards, this is all subjective and varies over time

comparison level

based on subjective individual perception, of how much reward they deserve in a relationship. based on previous experience and cultural influences (e.g media). high self esteem = perception of what they deserve is higher than someone with low self esteem. people think relationships are worth pursuing if comparison level is equal to or better than previous experience.

comparison level of alternatives

individuals judgement as to how one compares to a potential other (profitability). individuals weight up potential increase in rewards from alternative, against any costs with ending existing relationship. will stay in existing relationship as long as they find it more profitable than other potential options. if content with profits someone may not notice alternatives.

4 stages of relationship development (theories of romantic relationships)

1. sampling stage

2. bargaining stage

3. commitment stage

4. institutionalisation

1. sampling stage

1. potential rewards and costs of a relationship are explored, direct and observing others

2. bargaining stage

first stage of romantic relationship, partners exchange rewards and costs, figuring out profitable exchanges and negotiating dynamics of a relationships

3. commitment stage

when relationships are more stable, partners become more familiar with sources of rewards and costs, rewards increase and costs lessen

4. institutionalisation

when relationship norms are developed which establishes patterns of rewards and costs for each partner

evaluation of social exchange theory

reductionist - assumes all relationships are exchange based and centred purely around costs and rewards, limiting amount of real life experiences it can explain. e.g doesn’t account for why many people stay in abusive relationships despite lack of rewards and detrimental costs. may require a holistic approach in explaining the complexity, rather than simple economic theory like social exchange theory

direction of cause & effect - some argue SET has an issue with cause & effect due to its assumptions. Argyle argues that people rarely start assessing their relationships before they feel unsatisfied with them. contradicts SET which assumes that assessing profits and costs is the way all relationships (even happy) are maintained.

vague concepts - key concepts are difficult to define making it a vague explanation. e.g one partner may find lots of praise from a partner rewarding whereas another could find it annoying, so its difficult to measure. not clear how much costs should outweigh rewards before person starts to feel unsatisfied.

who made the equity theory

Walster (1978)

role of equity

suggests that partners are concerned about fairness in a relationship

equity and equality

equity doesn’t mean equality but instead fairness. most important with equity = both partner’s level of profit are roughly the same

consequences of inequity

potential to cause distress and is established when a person gives a great deal and gets little in return/receives a great deal and gives little in return. if inequity is feared they may try to change inputs and outputs to try to restore equity

the under benefitting partners experience (inequity)

the under benefitting partner will feel the greatest dissatisfaction and that will manifest through anger, hostility, and resentment.

the over benefitting partners experience (inequity)

likely to feel shame, guilt, and discomfort

how can perception of equity change

over time

evaluation of equity theory

research support - Hatfield looked at people who felt under or over benefitted. under benefitted felt angry or deprived, whilst over benefitted people felt guilty and uncomfortable. making the equity theory more useful, and reliable in explaining the importance of fairness in relationships

cultural limitations - Aumer-Ryan et al sow that equity is more important in western cultures, than non-western cultures. they found that both men and women from collectivist cultures claimed to be most satisfied with their relationship when they were over benefitting, not when it was fair. highlighting culture bias within the theory, can’t explain relationship development in all cultures.

individual differences - in perception of equity that may affect the usefulness of the equity theory. people who are less sensitive to inequity and prepared to give more (benevolents according to Hussman et al). other people (entitleds) believe they deserve to over benefit and don’t feel too guilty. these individual differences don’t fit the pattern of the equity theory.

who created the investment model of relationships

Rusbalt, 1980

investment model of relationships

1. relationship satisfaction, quality of alternatives, investment size

2. commitment

3. relationship stability

4. relationship maintenance mechanisms

satisfaction

high levels of satisfaction if they have more rewards (e.g companionship, emotional support, attention) and fewer costs (arguments, time)

comparison with alternatives

partners who are in committed relationships and answer ‘no’ to having better alternatives to satisfy their needs are often more dedicated to their relationship

examples of alternatives

single, not engaging in romantic relationships at all, or finding a new partner

investment

number of resources tangible (money or possessions) and intangible (happy memories etc) that people will lose if they leave relationships

intrinsic investment

the things we put directly into a relationship. e.g effort, money, self-disclosure

extrinsic investment

things brought into people’s lives through relationships. e.g children, friends, shared memories

what did Rusbalt say about investment

the bigger the investment the more likely people are to stay in relationships

satisfaction vs commitment

Rusbalt argues that the main psychological factor that causes people to stay in relationships is commitment (rather than satisfaction). They have made an investment they don’t want to see go to waste.

what can commitment (rather than satisfaction) explain

helps explain why dissatisfied partners will stay in a relationship because they are committed to their partner. therefore they will work hard to maintain and repair a relationship

relationship maintenance mechanisms

one mechanism is accommodation where you act in a way that promotes relationships rather than a tally of costs and rewards.

another is willingness to sacrifice where you put your partner’s interest first

forgiveness where you have a willingness to forgive partner’s mistakes (both minor and serious ones)

positive illusions being unrealistic about partner’s qualities

ridiculing alternatives minimising the advantages of potential alternatives and viewing them in a negative light

evaluation of the investment model of relationships

research support - Lee and Agnews study is a meta-analysis of 52 studies, featuring 17,000 pps and discovered that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives, and investment greatly contributed to commitment. and commitment was a defining feature of long term relationships

explains abusive relationships - plausible explanation for why people stay in those relationships, if a partner feels that the investment they made into that relationship will be lost if they leave, they are more likely to stay even when costs are high and rewards few.

oversimplifies investment - Goodfriend and Agnew argue it’s not just the things we bring into the relationship that count as investment, but also a couple’s plans for their future. shows its a complex phenomenon and the model may be reductionist

theories of relationships

• social exchange theory

• equity theory

• investment model of relationships

who created the phase model of relationship breakdown

Duck

what is each phase characterised by

one partner reaching a threshold where their perception of the relationship changes

intra-psychic phase

one person dwelling on the dissatisfactions in a relationship, generally private stage. weighing up pros and cons and considering alternatives

threshold for intra-psychic phase

I can’t stand this anymore

the dyadic phase

our concerns or dissatisfactions are aired with the other partner. then two options: can continue to the breakup and withdraw, or desire to repair the relationship (may still go over the threshold)

in the dyadic phase what may become more deep and frequent

self disclosure

threshold in the dyadic phase

i’d be justified in withdrawing

the social phase

focus is now on wider processes involving the couple’s social networks, break up made public. friends take different roles: may reinforce and reassure, may hasten/speed up by revealing info, some may pitch in and try repair (mediators)

what point is the social phase normally

point of no return, momentum driven by social forces

threshold of social phase

‘I mean it’

the grave-dressing phase

creating the breakup story (by public consumption), generally blaming anything else but themselves. this stage also involves making a personal story. rewriting of history and reframing views of other person and their behaviour

threshold for grave-dressing phase

‘its now inevitable’/’time to get a new life’

evaluation of Duck’s breakdown

real life application - can explain how couples stay together even when they have doubts as thresholds need to be breached. therefore the model is useful for marriage guidance

descriptive rather than explanatory - model doesn’t give any indication on what causes the relationship to break down, just explains process when it does break down. Duck has addressed this by creating a separate theory about issues. 3 reasons: lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties

culture bias - based on theories from individualist culture, where ending the relationship is a voluntary choice and separation and divorce are easily attainable and don’t carry a stigma. but this may not be the case in collectivist cultures. Where relationships are sometimes arranged and characterised by greater family involvement making the relationship difficult to end meaning the break up won’t follow the process outlined by Duck