RELATIONSHIPS🫂
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION FOR PARTNER PREFERENCES
^^SEXUAL SELECTION^^
%%INTERSEXUAL SELECTION%%
%%This is the selection preferred by females - quality over quantity. Females put in more time investment & commitment during the birth of their offspring & after. They will choose a partner that can offer resources like food & shelter, this can enhance her reproductive success as the offspring will have a greater chance of survival due to resource availability.
→ Females will mate with a male with desirable characteristics so this ‘sexy’ trait can be inherited by her son, increasing the likelihood of her son reproducing as well
%%INTRASEXUAL SELECTION%%
This is the selection preferred by males - quantity over quality. Competition is between other males to be able to mate with a female & the winner will be able to pass onto his offspring the winning characteristics (height, attractiveness, etc).
^^MATING STRATEGIES^^
%%MALE%%
Courtship rituals → allows showing off genetic potential and resources
Size → bigger body sizes demonstrate physical strength and an ability to protect partner and offspring from threats
Sperm competition → evolved to have bigger testicles and faster swimming sperm
Mate guarding → keeping a close eye on partners to prevent unfaithfulness
Sneak copulation → being unfaithful
%%FEMALE%%
Sexy sons hypothesis → females select males they deem physically attractive as they are likely to pass this onto their children, increasing the offspring’s chance of reproducing
Handicap hypothesis → some women may pick men with handicaps as it shows an ability to thrive despite adversities, this may explain why some women are attracted to men who take drugs and drink a lot
Courtship → dating is an important strategy for females to establish a man’s worth to produce offspring
^^EVALUATION^^
(+) There is supporting research → Buss studied 10,000 adults in 33 different countries & found that men preferred younger, physically attractive females (as signs of good reproductive capacity), whilst females preferred dependable, ambitious and older men with vast resources
(-) There is low external validity of the explanation → these explanations do not take into account same sex relationships
(-) It has low temporal validity → partner preferences over the past century have rapidly changed from social norms and other societal factors (e.g., availability of contraception) & women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men to provide for them
(-) The research is socially sensitive → prejudices & stigmatisation may result from stating that male and female mating strategies should be different, this would cause an alpha bias where society may judge people for acting differently to what these evolutionary theories state
^^FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTIONSELF DISCLOSURE^^
Social penetration theory → gradual process of revealing yourself & you need reciprocity
Breadth & depth → we disclose superficial information & get deeper as relationship develops
Reciprocity → partners will exchange a balance of self disclosure
%%EVALUATION%%
(+) Has supporting research → Sprecher & Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples & found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure - this means they are more satisfied and committed to the relationship
(-) The research supporting shows correlation not causation → it could be equally viable that if a couple are more satisfied this will lead to greater self-disclosure rather than the opposite
(+) There are real life applications → help people to form relationships and be more satisfied in romantic relationships
^^PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS^^
Women seek signs of wealth, resources, security & strength in men. Men look for signs of fertility in women: an hourglass figure is ideal.
Symmetrical face → sign of good genes
Baby face → triggers a care instinct
%%HALO EFFECT%%
People who are considered attractive benefit from favourable views from society & are assumed they are kind & good at everything.
%%MATCHING HYPOTHESIS%%
We are more likely to be attracted to people who are of similar physical attractiveness to ourselves.A 7/10 female will look for a 7/10 male.
%%EVALUATION%%
(+) Has supporting research → walster et al. told students that they had been paired with an ideal partner for a dance (actually random), couples who were of similar attractiveness to each other tended to rate their partner higher
(-) There are methodological issues & lacks a scientific approach → Murstein conducted a correlational study with couples where judges rated the attractiveness level of each partner using photos - significant similarity between partners’ levels of physical attractiveness were found, but the ratings of physical attractiveness were not objective, which reduces the internal validity
(+)Has supporting research → Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable & competent than unattractive people - this halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when pts knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise
(-) The theory is reductionist → the complicated & multi-faceted behaviour of attraction is broken down to a few simple factors, so it could be argued that it ignored other environmentally & holistic factors
FILTER THEORY^^**Social demographic →** more likely to be attracted to individuals that live/work near us, etc**Similarity in attitudes →** more likely to meet people with similar attitudes & beliefs**Complementary →** how much the individual meets their partners needs%%EVALUATION%%(+) Has **supporting research** → *Festinger found that people who lived nearer the stairwells in apartment blocks knew the most people in the block*(-) It’s deterministic → suggests we have little control over potential mates & that the filtering of individuals outside of our location & social circles occurs before we even start to look for partners(+) Has **supporting research** → *Taylor et al. found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 were married to someone of their own ethnicities (social demographic)*THEORIES OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS^^SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY^^REWARDS - COSTS = OUTCOME**Comparison level** – this is the comparison on the current relationship using past relationships as a guide**Comparison level for alternative relationships** – other potential relationships are looked at. e.g. if you were considering others partners & they are judged to offer more benefits, the current relationship is likely to break up%%STAGES OF RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT%%Sampling stage → rewards & costs are assessed
Bargaining stage → couple negotiates the relationship & agrees the rewards & costs, exchange begins
Commitment → exchange of rewards becomes predictable & stability of rewards increase as costs decrease
Institutionalism → expectations are established & the couple settles down
EVALUATION
- %%(+) Has supporting research to support it → Rusbult and Zembrodt conducted a longitudinal study with 30 students in heterosexual relationships, participants completed a questionnaire every 17 days for 7 months where they were asked to weigh up the costs and benefits of their relationships - those who stayed in a relationships, that increases in rewards led to better satisfaction, but costs had little impact on satisfaction
- (-) The theory has theoretical flaws →the costs in a relationship may not be as important at all stages of a relationship as partners don’t think about the cost when getting into a relationship
- (+) There are practical applications → using this theory can help develop couples therapy to focus on the perceived or actual costs and rewards
- (-) There is cultural bias → some cultures may value security more highly than what ‘profit’ may come from the relationship, this implies the theory could face issues when applied to non-western cultures
- (-) It doesn’t take into account individual differences → some people stay in relationships when the costs outweigh the benefits such as in cases of domestic abuse
EQUITY THEORY
^^Walster refined the theory that is based on the idea of fairness for each partner.
Equity does NOT equal equality.
Over/underbenefitting in a relationship? Dissatisfaction in the relationship may begin. Underbenefitting can lead to anger, hostility, resentment & humiliation from inequitable conditions.
RATIO OF INPUTS & OUTPUTS
%%Profit: rewards are maximised & cost is minimisedDistribution: trade offs & compensation are negotiatedDissatisfaction: unfairness = dissatisfactionRealignment: attempts made to realign equity%%EVALUATION%%(+) Has evidence to support it → Dainton(-) The theory doesn’t include cultural differences →(+) There are practical applications(-) There are issues with cause & effect →^^RUSBULT’S INVESTMENT MODEL OF COMMITMENT^^
→
→ COMMITMENT LEVEL → FUTURE STAY OR LEAVE DECISION
**→****Satisfaction** is **to what degree your partner meets your needs**. Highly satisfying relationships would have **high rewards & little costs**. Using the most benefit analysis, satisfaction is based on comparison level.**Comparison to alternatives** is **whether the relationship can stand up against possible alternatives**. If needs are adequately met, commitment to the relationship to the relationship is stronger.**Investment size** is when the longer the relationship continues, the more both partners have invested (kids, money, etc). This would mean that by leaving the relationship the investment would become useless.More investment = stronger the commitment%%MAINTENANCE BEHAVIOURS%%Accommodation: don’t engage in tit-for-tat retaliation, instead act to promote the relationship
e.g. partner shouts at you, you don’t shout back
Willingness to sacrifice: partners needs should be put first
e.g. partner has a job in France → you move to France with them
Forgiveness: partners to forgive them for any serious transgression
e.g. partner cheats on you, you forgive them
Positive illusions: partners should be unrealistically positive about partners qualities
e.g. exaggerate their best qualities, ignore the bad ones
Ridiculing alternatives: partners should be negative about tempting alternatives & other peoples relationships
e.g. if a couple you know is having relationship problems, you will joke about their issues
EVALUATION
- %%(-) There are theoretical flaws with this theory
- (+) There is evidence to support the model →
- (-) We have problems measuring key variables
- (+) This theory can explain abusive relationships
^^DUCKS PHASE MODEL OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN^^
%%5 MINOR REASONS%%
1 - Predisposing personal factors → bad habits, personal hygiene
2 - Precipitating factors → love rival, working long hours, bad cooking
3 - Lack of skills → partner is sexually inexperienced, kinks
4 - Lack of motivation → inequality, no effort
5 - Lack of maintenance → too much independence, never see each other
%%PHASE OF RELATIONSHIPS%%
INTRAPSYCHIC
Partner privately thinks & begins to feel dissatisfied.
→ Focus on partner behaviour
→ Consider costs & rewards
DYADIC
Dissatisfaction is discussed with partner, if nothing changes then the next phase occurs.
→ Confront partner
SOCIAL
Breakup is made public to friends & family, negotiations may occur.
→ Gossip in close circles
→ Face saving stories
GRAVE DRESSING
Post relationship perception is created, ex partners rebuild their life for new relationships.→ Perform ‘getting over it’ actions
→ Tidying up stories to tell people
RESURRECTION
Moving on & getting into new relationships.
%%EVALUATION%%
(-) The theory is incomplete →
(+) There is evidence to support it →
(-) The theory is not culturally universal →
(+) There are practical applications →
(-) There are some ethical issues with this theory →
VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS^^
^^SELF DISCLOSURE IN VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS^^^^
%%REDUCED CUES THEORY%%Sproull & Kiesler (1986) show CMC relationships are less effective than FtF ones as they lack many of the cues we normally depend on in FtF interactions like nonverbal cues (facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, overall physical appearance). Most of these give an insight into our emotional state.
This leads to deindividuation (reduces sense of self-identify), which then encourages disinhibition (disregard of social conventions) when relating to others. Virtual relationships are therefore more likely to involve blunt and aggressive communication. This leads to a reluctance to self-disclose. You are unlikely to disclose intimate details to or initiate a relationships with someone who is so impersonal.
%%THE HYPERPERSONAL MODEL
\
\
\
\
- \
- \
- \
- \
%%**Time to manipulate disclosure** → the sender of a message has more time to manipulate their online image & control over what they disclose**Confidence behind a shield** → behaviour changes as you are behind a shield and feel protected from consequences**Greater anonymity →** people are more likely to be truthful about themselves - less risk%%EVALUATION%%(+) Has **evidence** to support it → *Whitty & Johnson found whilst researching a number of online discussions, that the questions tended to be very direct, probing and sometimes intimate, these questions wouldn’t be appropriate for FtF*(**-**) The theory has **cultural differences** → *Yim and Hara found between American, Japanese and Korean participants in how disclosure increased or decreased trust.**Americans → higher disclosure in VRs = higher levels of trust**Korean → higher disclosure in VRs = lower levels of trust**Japanese → thought disclosure was irrelevant*(+) There are **practical applications** → an environment in which people can control their self-disclosures (such as the internet) can help vulnerable groups such as those with high social anxiety(**-**) There are **theoretical flaws** → *Walther argues that relationships are conducted online and offline through many different types of media & this is done interchangeably in modern relationships*^^ABSENCE OF GATING IN VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS^^When people go on a date, deficiencies might ‘block off’ some people from progressing further with their date, like someone being ugly or shouting at a waiter. In VR these gates do not initially exist to the same extent as physical relationships since flaws can be covered.%%EVALUATION%%(+) Has **evidence** to support it → *bargh et al. found that intimacy developed quicker in virtual relationships compared to physical relationships because of a lack of gating features*(-) The theory has a **beta bias** → research has not established if any age or sex differences exist with regards to the absence of gating factors, something evolutionary theory would have predicted(+) There are **real life** **applications** → VR broadens the scope of our potential mates, it also allows us to dismiss factors that could, in real-world relationships have caused us to end the relationships, such as issues with proximity(-) The theory is **incomplete** → fails to account for the nonverbal cues that are not entirely missing from virtual relationships, they are just different rather than absent (e.g. being too short/long on a reply)PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS^^LEVELS OF PARASOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS^^
- \
- \
- \
Entertainment-social subscale → celebrities viewed as fuel for social interaction, like gossipingIntense-personal subscale → intense thoughts and feelings are felt about the celebrity, individuals like to share these thoughts with others who feel a similar way (e.g. a group on twitter)Borderline-pathological sub-scale → uncontrollable & extreme behaviours, these might include spending or planning to spend a large sum of money on a celebrity related topic^^ABSORPTION - ADDICTION MODEL^^ABSORPTION → seeking fulfilment from a celebrity motivates the individual to become preoccupied and identify with themADDICTION → the individual needs a more intense involvement to sustain commitment, this could lead to extreme behaviours like stalking them^^EVALUATION^^(+) Has research to support it → Maltby found that individuals in the entertainment-social category were mentally healthy, however those in higher categories had poor mental and physical health(-) There are methodological issues → most research studies on PSRs use self-report methods like online questionnaires, these are subject to a number of effects that can bias the findings - e.g. pts may respond in a way which they think enhances their social status (social desirability bias)(+) There are real life applications → maltby found that females aged 14-16 who had a parasocial relationship with a female whose body shaped they admired, had a poor body image - they speculated this could be a precursor to the development of anorexia, we can use this as a sign for ED developmentATTACHMENT THEORY EXPLANATIONThere is a tendency to form PSRs in adolescence & adulthood due to difficulties with attachment in childhood. Particularly with those children with an insecure-resistant (type C) attachment type. PSRs make no demands and do not involve criticism or the risk of rejection.
are individuals hold more negative views about themselves, they turn to TV characters as a means of satisfying their often unmet relational needs. These PSRs reflect their desire for intimacy, even if this intimacy is with a TV personality.
are least likely to enter into PSRs with TV personalities. They find it difficult to develop intimate relationships and therefore are less likely to seek real-life relationships or PSRs. They avoid not only relational intimacy but imagined intimacy as well.
- \
- \