Key Studies
Buss (1989)
↳key: patterns of mate preference in males and females are similar cross-culturally and are consistent with predictions of evolutionary theory
Aim: investigate cross-cultural similarities and differences in mate preference in males and females
Method:
→ Survey where participants had to answer questions like: ideal age to marry; desired age difference with spouse; desired amount of children
↳ also had to rank 18 characteristics (most to least important) for desirable mate
Participants: 37 samples from 33 countries (6 continents); 10000 in total
Results:
→ In all samples, females valued “good financial prospect” more for potential mate in males
↳ also preferred older males (for maturity, experience, cues of longevity)
↳ shows evolutionary explanation of how mothers want to maximize resources for their children
→ Males valued physical characteristics more and preferred younger females
↳ shows evolutionary explanation for finding someone with higher reproductive activity/potential (capacity)
Conclusion
→ gender differences were prevalent across cultures and shows evolutionary process of attraction
Notes: researchers used unequal samples (i.e. over 1400 participants from US but 51 in Iran)
↳underrepresented rural and less-educated people
Johnston et al (2001)
↳How can one or more factors affect the formation of personal relationships?
Aim: to see what types of faces females found more attractive
Participants: 42 female participants from New Mexico University
Method: quasi-experiment (IV=menstrual cycle; DV-attraction to masculine faces)
Procedure:
↳ manipulated faces on computer screen until reached an “optimal” target (changed face until they thought it was attractive)
Results:
↳ when females were ovulating, they had a stronger preference for facial features that signaled higher testosterone levels
Conclusion:
↳ concluded that high testosterone could be attractive for a female since it correlates to a healthier immune system, leading to a healthy offspring
Methodological Considerations:
↳ no quantitative data
↳ cannot be generalized to all women (from ovulating women)
↳ college students can’t represent a whole population
→ limitations of applications of the study to understand attraction across humans
Ethical Considerations:
↳ informed consent
↳ deals with a sensitive topic (menstrual cycle)
↳ revealing too much information early in the study creates possible change in behavior to please researchers
Levine et al (1995) (Love and Marriage)
Background:
→ Romantic love is universal, but importance of love through marriage is not
→ In majority of world cultures, marriage is arranged by family members
→ In cultures with strong kinship networks and extended family ties, romantic love is seen as irrelevant since it disrupts the tradition of family-approved marriage choices
→ Some studies have shown that love is more important in cultures with weak economic interdependence between spouses
→ In America, love seems to be an essential precondition for marriage
Aim: examine cross-cultural generality of the importance placed on romantic love in marriage decisions; identify predictors and consequences of these differences
(Main hypothesis): collectivism will be negatively related to the importance placed on romantic love
Participants: 497 male and 673 female students of liberal arts from eleven countries (i.e. India, Mexico, Philippines, Japan, Hong Kong)
Procedure:
→questionnaire used to measure romantic love
↳ participants were asked about their beliefs on romantic love
Predictors and Consequences of Romantic Love":
→ Relationships with socioeconomic characteristics of nations to beliefs about importance of romantic love were examined: individualism/collectivism, economic status, marriage, family statistics
Results:
→ individualistic cultures were much more likely to rate romantic love as important for marriage
↳ disappearance of this would be a sufficient reason to end marriage
↳ countries with higher GDP (Gross Domestic Product) also showed this more strongly
→ Countries with greater importance of romantic love for marriage had higher marriage rates, lower fertility rates, and higher divorce rates
→Divorce rates correlated with the belief of the disappearance of love in marriage
Conclusion:
→ there were strong cross-cultural differences in the perceived importance of love for marriages
→Western and westernized nations showed greater importance
↳ also with individualistic nations
Methodological Considerations:
→ provided a cheap but efficient way to obtain large amount of information from a large sample of people
→ respondents may lie for social desirability
→ correlation does not equal causation (low internal validity)
→ allows the researcher to investigate naturally occurring variables that may be unethical to test experimentally
↳ also allow them to clearly see if there’s a relationship between variables
Alternative explanations:
→participants may have answered untruthfully to self-reports to create a positive image
↳ (results cannot be generalized, lowering external validity)
→ only used three questions (low predictive and external validity)
→ sample cannot reflect millions of people in the cultures/countries
Ethics: mostly ethical through CARDUD (had informed consent, no deception, confidential identities)
Cultural considerations: results could be generalized to a bigger population
→So what?
The study shows the role of culture in formation of relationships since individuals of different cultures shared distinct perceptions of love
→Western and westernized nations placed greater importance of romantic love
→ Formation of relationships is distinct throughout the world, so there will be distinct dynamics within romantic relationships
→ SO, the distinction between creation of relationships creates a basis for differences in the role of communication and explains how relationships develop and ultimately end over time
Gottman and Levenson (1985, 1992)
→ Placed couples in a low conflict discussion on a major source of disagreement in their relationship
→ Each spouse then returned to a lab to make a self-evaluation on how their communication had turned out (through looking at positive, negative, and neutral micro-expressions)
↳ they were observed and videotaped
Results:
→found marital dissatisfaction associated with negative micro-expressions (like no eye contact, eye rolling)
→ found marital satisfaction was associated with positive expressions (like smiling, nodding, opening up body language)
→ unhappy couples expressed a variety of negative emotions→ led to increased stress and mutual unhappiness
Evaluation:
→ Observed behavior may not be natural (it was videotaped in a lab setting)
→ Small sample size=low generalization= low ecological validity
→ Confounding variables (in emotions of anxiety, confidence) could have also influence the micro-expressions
→Study proposed an oversimplified model of predicting divorce, oversimplifying complex nature of marital relationships
→Real-life divorces often have many causes that can’t be reduced in observational behaviors
→1992:
→Key terms:
↳ RCISS: Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System→ measures frequencies of behavior and verbal/nonverbal content in a discussion
↳ Regulated couples: those who meet ratio for positive and negative discussions
↳ Non-regulated couples: those who don’t meet criteria for positive to negative discussions
Aim: see if differences in communication patterns between couples influence marital satisfaction
Method:
→ 73 couples studied over a 4-year period
→ interviews conducted in the “love lab” with recording devices
↳ before the interviews, the couples had not seen each other all day
→ were asked to discuss 3 topics: positive, neutral, and negative (conflict)
↳ analyzed through RCISS)
Results:
→ Regulated couples met a ratio of positive to negative interactions (about 5:1)
↳ had higher marital satisfaction and more positive emotions (they didn’t insult their partner)
→Non-regulated couples did not meet criteria and were angrier
↳ more likely to divorce during the 4 year period (19% compared to 7%)
Conclusion:
→ positive communication=healthy relationship
→negative communication=damages it
Rehman and Holtz-Munro (2007)
↳ Aim: test the cultural generalizability of findings showing strong association between communication behaviors and marital satisfaction
Method: observation of communication styles and marital satisfaction
Participants:
→ 50 American, 48 Pakistani immigrant, and 52 Pakistani couples
Procedure:
→ couples were measured for marital satisfaction with a test about general philosophy of life and affection levels in the couple
→ Each couple had to talk about their relationship for 7.5 minutes each (wife then husband)
↳ topics were potential problem areas
↳ were videotaped to code for global negative and positive marital communication behavior
→Coders would then rate couples and individuals from 1 to 9 (9 discussing the most marital communication behavior)
Results:
→ all groups showed a correlation between marital satisfaction and positive marital communication behavior
↳ significantly greater in American couples than Pakistani and Pakistani immigrant couples
Evaluation:
→ correlational study= no causation
→ cultural differences can affect affection levels
Ex: Collectivist cultures like India and Pakistan have low divorce rates
Individualistic cultures like US tend to have higher divorce rates
↳ divorce rates and communicating that depends on cultural values
→If a couple marries for love, it means they are placing their own personal decisions and feelings above the thoughts and feelings of others
→ if a couple is married based on an arranged marriage (which is still common in many cultures), and/or they believe that marrying for love is the most important factor in getting married, they may not decide to end the marriage if a relationship deteriorates
Fincham et al (2000)
Aim: measure correlations between attributions and marital satisfaction
Method: →130 mostly white couples from Mid-West USA, married for 15-20 months
→ marital satisfaction was measured with Quality Marriage Index (QMI)
↳ data collected three times with questionnaires during an 18 month time period
Results:
→ one result showed how marital satisfaction was negatively correlated with casual attributions at the beginning of the study (-0.44) and after 18 months (-0.41)
↳ when partners made a negative attribution of their partner’s behavior, their marital satisfaction decreased
Conclusion/Key: shows how a partner’s behavior can affect marital satisfaction→ one reason a relationship may falter into a divorce
Critical Thinking:
→ longitudinal study/correlational
→ questions on anonymity (talking about private information about marriage and relationships)
Graham and Conoley (2006)
Aim: to see if stress affected marital quality, but also if couples’ attributions could moderate this effect (either increase or decrease it)
Method:
→ had 58 mostly white middle-class couple from Texas, USA
→stress was measured using a standard measure of stress in the past 12 months
→ Attributions were measured by giving 10 hypothetical situations
↳ asking participants how they would attribute the behavior if it was done by their partner and if they would the attribute to an internal or external causes
→done using questionnaires
Results:
→results supported researchers’ hypothesis that the attribution style would moderate relationship between stressful events and marital satisfaction
↳ stressful event has less of an impact on marital satisfaction for couples who were more likely to make positive attributions of their partner’s behavior compared to those who made negative attributions