Relationships Revision

Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

• Definition of Sexual Selection

  • Proposed by Darwin (1871), sexual selection explains how certain traits are favored because they increase reproductive success rather than aiding survival. It operates alongside natural selection to explain sex differences in behavior and appearance.

  • Intrasexual Selection: Competition between members of the same sex (typically males) for access to mates. Success leads to passing on genes for strength and dominance.

  • Intersexual Selection: One sex (typically females) selects between potential mates based on desirable traits, driving the evolution of male displays and female choosiness.

• Anisogamy and Parental Investment (Trivers, 1972)

  • Anisogamy refers to the biological difference in gametes: females produce a small number of large, costly ova; males produce millions of cheap sperm.

  • Female Investment: High investment due to gestation, lactation, and childcare. Consequently, females have more to lose from poor mate choices and are the more selective sex.

  • Male Investment: Males can increase success through multiple partners, making them the more competitive sex.

  • Evolved Strategies: Females seek genetic quality and resources; males seek fertility and reproductive value.

• Predicted Mate Preferences

  • Female Preferences: Indicators of genetic quality and resources.

  • Bilateral Symmetry: Signals developmental stability and resistance to pathogens.

  • Resources and Status: Ability to provision and protect offspring.

  • Dominance Cues: Signals of competitive ability.

  • Male Preferences: Indicators of fertility and reproductive value.

  • Youth: Indicates more remaining reproductive years.

  • Physical Attractiveness: Smooth skin and hair signal hormonal health.

  • Waist-to-Hip Ratio: Approximately $0.7$ (Singh, 1993), serving as a cross-cultural indicator of fertility.

• Buss (1989) — Cross-Cultural Partner Preferences

  • Aim: To investigate if sex differences in mate preferences are universal as predicted by evolutionary theory.

  • Procedure: $10,047$ participants from $37$ cultures across $6$ continents rated the desirability of $18$ characteristics and indicated preferred age differences.

  • Findings:

  • In all $37$ cultures, females rated financial prospects and ambition significantly higher.

  • In $36$ out of $37$ cultures, males rated physical attractiveness and youth higher.

  • Males preferred partners approximately $2.66$ years younger; females preferred partners approximately $3.42$ years older.

  • Conclusion: Consistent sex differences across cultures support evolutionary predictions rooted in anisogamy.

• Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations

  • Support: Buss (1989) provides cross-cultural universality, reducing the likelihood that results reflect only Western norms.

  • Limitation: Reliance on self-report questionnaires vulnerable to social desirability bias (Buller, 2005). Participants may report culturally approved preferences rather than genuine attraction.

  • Limitation: Clark and Hatfield (1989) found $75\%$ of males agreed to a stranger's request for sex, but virtually $0\%$ of females did. This might reflect safety/reputation risks rather than evolved selectivity.

  • Limitation: Deterministic view fails to account for same-sex relationships or individuals preferring partners not predicted by anisogamy.

  • Limitation: Eagly and Wood (1999) proposed the biosocial model, arguing differences reflect social roles. Their analysis found that in gender-equal societies, sex differences in preferences were reduced.

Factors Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships

• Self-Disclosure (Altman and Taylor, 1973)

  • Refers to revealing personal information, thoughts, and feelings. It is the fundamental mechanism for intimacy.

  • Social Penetration Theory: Analogous to peeling an onion.

  • Early Stage: Disclosure is broad but shallow (surface level topics).

  • Developed Stage: Disclosure is narrower but deeper (personal and emotionally significant).

  • Inner Layers: Private aspects revealed only in highly intimate relationships.

  • Reciprocity (Jourard, 1971): Emotional depth must be mutual. Over-disclosing early can cause discomfort and inhibit relationship growth.

• Physical Attractiveness and the Halo Effect

  • Attractive individuals are rated more favorably across various characteristics (the "what is beautiful is good" assumption).

• The Matching Hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966)

  • People seek partners of similar attractiveness to protect against rejection.

  • Walster et al. (1966) Computer Dance Study:

  • Procedure: $752$ University of Minnesota freshers were told they were computer-matched for a dance (actually random). Confederates rated participant attractiveness.

  • Findings: Date attractiveness was the strongest predictor of liking. No matching effect was found; participants preferred the most attractive date regardless of their own rating.

  • Conclusion: The artificial setting lacked the risk of rejection necessary for matching behavior to manifest.

  • Murstein (1972) — Couples and Matching:

  • Procedure: Photos of $99$ established couples vs. randomly paired control couples were rated by judges blind to relationship status.

  • Findings: Real couples were significantly more similar in attractiveness than controls.

• Filter Theory (Kerckhoff and Davis, 1962)

  • Relationships develop through a sequence of filters that narrow potential partners.

  • Filter 1: Social Demography: Geography, social class, religion, and education determine who we encounter first.

  • Filter 2: Similarity in Attitudes: Shared values and beliefs. Byrne's (1971) reinforcement-affect model suggests this validates our worldview.

  • Filter 3: Complementarity: In long-term bonds, partners' needs must fit together (e.g., one's strength compensates for another's weakness).

  • Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) Longitudinal Study:

  • Procedure: Student couples tested at start and after $7$ months. Divided into short-term (under $18$ months) and long-term (over $18$ months).

  • Findings: For short-term, attitude similarity predicted progress. For long-term, complementarity predicted progress.

• Evaluation of Attraction Factors

  • Support: Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found positive correlations between reciprocal self-disclosure and satisfaction in heterosexual couples.

  • Validity: Feingold's (1988) meta-analysis of $17$ studies found a moderate correlation of $r = .39$ between partners' attractiveness.

  • Generalizability: Kerckhoff and Davis studied American university students; filters may operate differently in other demographics.

  • Temporal Validity: Foundational research from the 1960s/70s may not reflect contemporary attraction shaped by social media and edited photographs.

Theories of Romantic Relationships

• Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959)

  • Economic approach: maximize rewards (support, companionship) and minimize costs (time, conflict).

  • Profit: Rewards minus costs.

  • Comparison Level (CL): Personal standard based on past experience and norms.

  • Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt): Whether better outcomes exist elsewhere.

  • Stages: Sampling, Bargaining, Commitment, Institutionalisation.

• Equity Theory (Walster et al., 1978)

  • Satisfaction depends on perceived fairness, not just profit. Ratio of inputs to outputs must be equal between partners.

  • Inequity: Over-benefited and under-benefited partners both experience distress, though under-benefited feel it more.

  • Stafford and Canary (2006): Study of $200$ married couples; equitable relationships showed the highest satisfaction and maintenance behaviors.

• Rusbult's Investment Model (1980)

  • Commitment is determined by three factors:

  1. Satisfaction: Rewards minus costs relative to CL.

  2. Quality of Alternatives: Perceived desirability of other options.

  3. Investment Size: Resources lost if the relationship ends. Intrinsic (time, emotion) and Extrinsic (possessions, children).

  • Explains why individuals stay in abusive relationships due to high investment and poor alternatives.

  • Rusbult et al. (1998): Assessing satisfaction, alternatives, and investment across multiple relationship types. Found the model accounted for approximately $61\%$ of variance in commitment.

• Evaluation of Relationship Theories

  • Meta-Analysis: Le and Agnew (2003) across $52$ studies confirmed the investment model strongly predicts commitment.

  • Cultural Bias: SET and Equity Theory assume individualistic economic approaches that may not apply to collectivist cultures governed by duty/obligation.

  • Reductionism: SET ignores altruism and selfless concern for a partner's wellbeing.

Duck's Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown

• Overview: Breakdown is a process, not an event, characterized by thresholds.

• The Four Phases (plus Resurrection)

  • Intra-psychic Phase: "I can't stand this any more." Internal brooding on grievances and costs vs. benefits. Little is communicated.

  • Dyadic Phase: "I'd be justified in leaving." Confrontation between partners. Discussion involves negotiation or repair attempts.

  • Social Phase: "I mean it." Breakdown becomes public. Friends and family are informed; gossip and alliance formation occur.

  • Grave-dressing Phase: "It's now inevitable." Narrative construction to protect self-esteem and attribute blame externally.

  • Resurrection Phase: Added later by Duck; using lessons learned to prepare for future relationships.

• Evaluation of Breakdown Phases

  • Support: Tashiro and Frazier (2003) surveyed undergraduates; most reported personal growth consistent with the resurrection phase.

  • Support: Kassin (1996) found accounts of breakdown closely matched Duck's sequence (shift from rumination to public account-giving).

  • Limitation: Research relies on retrospective self-report; memories for emotional events may be reconstructed during the grave-dressing phase itself.

  • Limitation: The model is linear, but real breakdown is often non-linear and recursive (partners oscillate between phases).

Virtual Relationships in Social Media

• Self-Disclosure in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)

  • Hyperpersonal Model (Walther, 1996): CMC can produce greater intimacy than face-to-face (FtF).

  • Optimized Self-Presentation: Senders craft messages to present an idealized self.

  • Positive Attribution: Receivers fill gaps in information with positive qualities.

  • Asynchronous Communication: Allows for more reflection before sharing.

• Absence of Gating (McKenna and Bargh, 1999)

  • Online, gates like physical appearance, social anxiety, or visible disabilities are absent.

  • Allows relationships to develop based on personality and values rather than superficial traits.

  • McKenna and Bargh (1999): Follow-up study on internet newsgroup relationships. Findings: $70\%$ progressed to phone contact; $54\%$ met in person; $57\%$ were still ongoing after $2$ years.

• Evaluation of Virtual Relationships

  • Support: The longitudinal evidence from McKenna and Bargh shows online bonds are not merely transient.

  • Temporal Validity: Foundational work from the late 90s/early 2000s reflects text-based internet. Modern social media (photos/video calls) means gates are no longer entirely absent.

Parasocial Relationships

• Definition (Horton and Wohl, 1956): One-sided relationships with media figures who are unaware of the fan's existence.

• Three Levels of Engagement (McCutcheon et al., 2002)

  1. Entertainment-Social: Fans enjoy discussing the celebrity for social reasons. Normal/unproblematic.

  2. Intense-Personal: Feelings of closeness; belief the celebrity is a soulmate. Obsessive thinking begins.

  3. Borderline-Pathological: Extreme engagement; uncontrollable behaviors; thoughts of doing anything for the celebrity.

• The Absorption-Addiction Model (McCutcheon et al., 2002)

  • Absorption: Following the celebrity to fulfill needs for escapism or identity.

  • Addiction: Needing increasingly intense engagement to achieve satisfaction.

• Attachment Theory Explanation

  • Insecure-Anxious Attachment: Individuals use parasocial bonds as a "safe" substitute because media figures cannot reject or abandon them.

  • Cole and Leets (1999): Found individuals with anxious attachment styles reported significantly greater emotional involvement in parasocial relationships.

• Evaluation of Parasocial Relationships

  • Support: Maltby et al. (2006) found intense-personal and borderline-pathological levels correlated with higher depression, anxiety, and social dysfunction.

  • Causality: Most research is correlational. It is unclear if poor mental health causes parasocial engagement or vice versa.

  • Conceptual Limitation: Using the term "addiction" may pathologize behavior that is actually a coping strategy.

  • Temporal Validity: Modern social media influencers interact with followers, blurring the line between parasocial and genuine social relationships.