Evolutionary explanations

Human reproductive behaviour

• Males and females differ in reproductive capabilities and partner finding strategies

  • Males produce ~100 million sperm per ejaculation, potential to reproduce many times

  • Females are born with a limited number of eggs and one is released per month for 35-40 years- fewer opportunities to reproduce

• Males may be more competitive against other males to find suitable fertile females

  • Favours dominant large males

• Females may be more selective over male partners who possess the best characteristics to pass on to her limited potential offspring

  • Have parental certainty- child is definitely theirs

• Male-female dimorphism- enhanced secondary sexual characteristics are selected for by both genders, leading to these becoming more common in the population

Sexual selection

• Characteristics that increase the chances of reproduction and passing on genetic material

• Intra-sexual selection- male’s best chance is to have sex as often as possible with as many different females as possible, may seek out females who show signs of fertility, e.g. breasts, youthful features, 0.7 waist to hip ratio- suggests sexual maturity but not pregnancy

• Inter-sexual selection- female’s best chance is to choose mates who show signs of superior genetic fitness and ability to provide resources to support her and any potential offspring, e.g. tall, healthy, strong, money

Strategies

Male

• Mate-guarding- being protective of their mate to prevent other males having the opportunity to get her pregnant, so he does not use resources to raise another male’s offspring

• Sneak copulation- having sex with other females when partner is away to increase chance of passing on genetic material

• Size and appearance- males have evolved to be larger, some species developed physical attributes to increase appearance of strength to females

Female

• Sexy sons hypothesis- females thought to seek out attractive males so any sons produced will be equally attractive and will continue to pass on genes to another generation

• Courtship- making a male spend time and resources in the build up to a relationship to check his suitability for reproduction

:) Study- found that in personal adverts, males looked for health and attractiveness and females looked for high status and resources

:) Study- found males and females looked for different characteristics in partners across a variety of cultures, supports claim that the difference stems from biology and evolution

:( Ignores relationships that are not aimed at reproducing like homosexual relationships

:( Gender alpha bias- legitimises a gender double standard saying men can have one night stands and women cannot

:( Socially sensitive- could be used to shame women for their sexual behaviour

Self-disclosure

• Telling personal information about yourself, important signal of trust at the start of a relationship

• May be important because:

  • We share more info as we get to know someone and trust builds

  • We feel closer and are more attracted to people because we disclose info to them

• Social penetration theory- breadth and depth of self-disclosure increases as the relationship develops

• Reciprocity- relationships will only develop if both disclose and respond appropriately

Factors affecting self-disclosure

• Gender- females may disclose more and place more importance on disclosures received

• Content- what is disclosed could influence attraction

  • For example, saying very personal info at the start of a relationship may violate social norms

• Attributions- why someone discloses, more attraction if someone especially wants to disclose intimate information to us

• Appropriateness- what is disclosed could be seen as appropriate or inappropriate

  • Breaking social norms or revealing info too early can lower attraction

:) Study- found appropriateness was important, if someone disclosed lots of personal info on a first date they were rated as less likeable and unattractive

:) Study- found that self-disclosure was higher in romantic relationships than friendships in samples from both USA and Japan, suggests it is important in romantic relationships across cultures

:( Personality is not taken into account- some people may disclose more and some may place more emphasis on receiving disclosure

:( Studies are correlational

Physical attractiveness

• Subjective- what is seen as attractive by one person may be unattractive to another

• From an evolutionary perspective, there are particular traits that everyone might find attractive

  • Indications of good genes and health, like facial symmetry and resources

• Halo effect- attributing positive characteristics to people who are physically attractive, making them more desirable partners

• Matching hypothesis- people are attracted to others who have a similar level of attractiveness

  • Assess own attractiveness in relation to others then focus attention on people at a similar level

  • Avoids the pain of rejection by not pursuing partners who are too attractive

  • Couples of similar attractiveness levels are likely to feel more secure

  • If one partner feels inferior, they may worry the other is considering more attractive alternatives

Walster et al

• Aim was to see whether matched attractiveness levels influence relationship formation

• University students were rated for attractiveness by independent judges and then paired with a partner of the opposite sex at a dance

• Partners were asked how much they liked their partner and whether they would like to see them again

• Most likely to like the partner if they had high physical attractiveness, regardless of their own

• Those who met up after were likely to be of similar attractiveness levels

Taylor et al

• Aim was to see whether the matching hypothesis is supported in real-world dating behaviour

• Four studies conducted looking for evidence of matching in dates organised using a dating website

  • Based on attractiveness, popularity and self worth

  • Investigated using questionnaires and independent ratings from others

• People made more contact with more attractive people, rejects matching hypothesis

• Replies were more likely to be sent if they were matching, supports matching hypothesis

:) Computer dance study- students told they had been matched by a computer program (was actually done randomly), found partners close in physical attractiveness rated each other higher

:( In cultures that use arranged marriage, family members may base the match on social standing and success rather than physical attractiveness, may not have universal appeal in attraction

Filter theory

• Only become attracted to those who pass through a series of filters

• Field of availables- everyone that we could be attracted to

• Field of desirables- everyone we are attracted to

1. Social demography- people we are most likely to encounter, such as neighbours and colleagues

   1. Also filter those with similar ethnic backgrounds, level of education and other social variables

2. Similarity in attitudes- attraction is more likely to build in people with similar beliefs and views, they are seen as more suitable to develop a relationship with

3. Complementarity- seeking out those who will provide for our needs and have what we don’t as they will provide more emotional satisfaction

:) Longitudinal study of students in relationships- under 18 months, similarity in attitudes was most important, over 18 months, emotional complementarity was most important

:) Study- 85% of married couples in 1998 in USA are from the same ethnic group, supports social demography

:( Beta bias- does not acknowledge that filters applied by males and females may be different

:( Cultural bias- assumes all cultures use the same filters, does not account for arranged marriages, where family members may not place as much importance on proximity or complementarity

:( Lack of temporal validity- filters may change over time, for example interracial marriage was rare in 1960s, but study suggests 15% of marriages were interracial in 2008

Social exchange theory

• Says relationships are a series of exchanges between partners where both give and receive

• Rewards- sex, companionship and shared living space

• Costs- time away from friends and family, money, arguments

• If both partners perceive they are in profit (more rewards than costs), the relationship will continue

  • Feeling at a loss may mean it will end

• Comparison level (CL)- assesses number of rewards and costs in the relationship

  • Linked to feelings of self worth

• Comparison level for alternative relationships (CLalt)- assesses profit against potential profit from alternative or no relationship

Four-stage model of development

1. Sampling- many relationships started while the person tries out the potential rewards and costs associated with having a relationship

2. Bargaining- once a potential partner is identified, all possible sources of profit and loss are assessed to decide whether to pursue a deeper relationship

3. Commitment- relationship continues when there is profit

4. Institutionalisation- couple settle into the relationship, setting an expectation for what rewards and costs will be tolerated for the continuation of the relationship

:) Study- found abused women were more likely to return to their partners if there was no better option available, even an abusive relationship could be profitable if the abused partner loses things like housing or financial security if they leave

:) Study- questionnaires over a 7 month period, found beginning phase of relationships had little to do with perceived profit but as they became more committed, the reward/cost comparison became more important

:( Criticised for suggesting people keep score in relationship, they may be in the relationship because of mutual respect and trust- suggests lack of universality

Equity theory

• Relationships depend on perceived fairness by both partners, motivation to maintain the relationship comes from happiness and fairness

• Each partner will put in and take, as long as each partner is satisfied that they are both giving and receiving a fair ratio, the relationship will continue

• If either partner feels there is inequity, the satisfaction level decreases and the relationship’s continuation is threatened

  • Under-benefitted- giving more than they receive

  • Over-benefitted- receiving more than they give

• If there is imbalance, discomfort acts as motivation to return the relationship to a state of equity

  • If one or both are not motivated to balance the ratio, the relationship may end

Principles of equity

1. Profit- each partner seeks to gain more than they put in

2. Distribution- partners negotiate to ensure the relationship remains equitable and fair

3. Distress- when unfairness is perceived, dissatisfaction begins. Distress increases in line with the amount of equity

4. Restoring balance- when inequity is detected, partners are motivated to act to restore the balance

:) Study- married couples self-reported relationship satisfaction, those who perceived equity were most satisfied, then over-benefitted, then under-benefitted

:) Study- found people in relationships perceived as unfair were the least satisfied, but also the most motivated to improve the equity

:( Study- partners in US valued equity over equality, but in Europe equality was more important, suggests lack of universality

:( Studies are correlational

:( Much of what people put into relationships is emotional, which is hard to measure

Rusbult’s investment model

• Considers factors associated with commitment

• Commitment = Satisfaction - Alternatives + Investment

Satisfaction

• Positive vs negative effects felt from being in the relationship

• Each partner assesses how much the relationship fulfils their needs (e.g. emotional and sexual needs)

  • If positive > negative, level of satisfaction will be high

• Positive correlation between satisfaction and commitment

Comparison with alternatives

• People are always considering potential alternatives to the current relationship

• When faced with an alternative, people make a quick calculation regarding whether there will be a higher satisfaction level with them

  • If yes, the commitment to current relationship decreases

  • If no, the commitment to current relationship remains high

Investments made

• Every relationship involves investment of resources by both partners into the joint partnership

  • Intrinsic investments- time and effort

  • Extrinsic investments- children, shared friends, possessions bought together

• Commitment is highest when perceived losses associated with ending the relationship outweigh any dissatisfaction felt

Additional factors

• Equity- satisfaction levels also influenced by perceived fairness

• Social support- commitment may be influenced by friends and family, if they have a positive view of the partner, they may remain more committed

:) Study- found women in abusive relationships were more likely to stay when number of alternatives was low, investments were high and level of dissatisfaction felt (severity of abuse) was low

:) Study- found high levels of commitment were associated with high levels of satisfaction, low number of quality alternatives and high levels of investment

:) A lot of research evidence comes from real romantic relationships- high ecological validity

:( Lots of evidence relies on self-report measures, may be influenced by social desirability bias e.g. not admitting they have considered alternatives to their relationship

Duck’s model of relationship breakdown

Reasons for breakdown

• Pre-existing doom- where the end of the relationship is likely to be predictable from the start

  • For example, lack of compatibility or serious differences in views

• Mechanical failure- most common cause, where the couple find the relationship itself does not work and cannot continue

  • Compatible people are no longer able to function as a couple

• Sudden death- where an unpredictable event causes a split

  • For example, discovery that one partner has cheated or a traumatic event

Phases of breakdown

Intra-psychic phase

• Threshold- “I cannot do this anymore”

• One or both partners feel dissatisfied and begin to consider how and when to end the relationship

• Considers if and when to share feelings with the other person

• May confide to a very close friend

Dyadic phase

• Threshold- “I would be justified in walking away”

• Dissatisfied partner shares feelings and the couple discuss the relationship’s status

• Resolutions can be discussed and attempts can be made to restore satisfaction

• Discuss inequity, intimacy and costs of breakup

Social phase

• Threshold- “I mean it”

• If a resolution is not possible, the couple make their split public and discuss dissatisfaction with people outside the relationship

• Blame-placing and gossip-spreading may be common

• Social network members pick sides and provide support

Grave-dressing phase

• Threshold- “It is inevitable”

• Marks the end of the relationship, about moving on

• Each partner begins rebuilding their life out of the relationship and tells their version of events of why the relationship broke down

• May question their decision and consider how the break-up has affected their social network

:) Study- students after a break-up reported feeling distressed but also experiencing personal growth, supports grave-dressing phase :( Only undergraduates so low generalisability :( Retrospective self-report may lack reliability

:) Study- found that when people feel dissatisfied in a relationship, they are likely to report increased social withdrawal while they decide what to do, supports intra-psychic phase

:) Study- looked at Facebook activities during a breakup, changed status to “It’s Complicated” (social phase) and showed moving on by posting pictures of having fun, like nights out (grave-dressing phase)

:) Real-life application- helped in relationship therapy, could prevent breakups by improving communication in dyadic phase

:( Evidence that males and females experience relationship breakdown differently- study found that women were more likely to state lack of emotional support as a reason for relationship ending, while men stated reasons like lack of sex

Virtual relationships

Self-disclosure

• Online partners can reveal info more easily due to the anonymity virtual relationships offer

  • Means they are more honest about their true self and less worried about appearance

  • Especially true for people with low self-esteem or concerns about physical appearance

• Absence of gating- communicating virtually removes barriers that may stop interactions if face-to-face such as physical attractiveness, age gap, different background, etc

• Reduced cue- computers lack features of face-to-face interactions such as non-verbal communication, may result in people misinterpreting typed communication

• Anonymity- deindividuation causes a reduction in feelings of responsibility, people can say things online that they never would in real life

  • Can lead to feelings of closeness and intimacy but also behaviours like sexting

• Hyperpersonal model- people may manipulate online identity and display a hyperhonest or hyperdishonest version of themselves

• Intimacy may build quicker than in a face-to-face relationship

Peter et al

• 493 adolescents self-reported extroversion/introversion, online self-disclosure, frequency of online communication and motives for communication

• Introverts communicated online more due to poor social skills and had more online friendships due to higher online disclosure than extroverts

:) Study- participants who self-disclose more honestly online are more likely to move friendships from virtual to face-to-face, and these friendships are more likely to remain 2 years later

:) Research suggests online communication is much easier for people with poor social skills, can help vulnerable people access help and support online if they find face-to-face discussions difficult

:) Study found that 70% of relationships that were formed online survived 2 years while 50% of face-to-face survived

:) Allows many people to gain access to relationships who could not in real life

:( Self-disclosure shared online may represent ideal self rather than real self

:( Lacks temporal validity- based on when computer communication was text only, there is video now

:( Cultural differences- one study found people in Korea showed less trust in virtual relationships

Absence of gating

• Gating- limiting factors that may prevent relationships from forming, e.g. lack of physical attraction

• Virtual relationships do not involve the same limiting factors because some of them are not obvious when talking online

• Allow people to create a virtual persona where they can portray themselves however they want

  • Undesirable factors can be hidden easily until the relationship has progressed to a point where the person no longer worries that the limiting factor will have a negative effect on the relationship

• Absence of gating can be abused by some people- deliberately hide elements of their identity, allowing them to get close to people online who may otherwise not want a relationship with them

:) Study- lab experiment where participants had 20 minute conversations with other people. Control- two face-to-face meetings, experimental- online and face-to-face. Ratings of a person were higher when meeting online, suggesting gating features in face-to-face conversations may influence interaction quality

:( Lots of evidence for the theory relies on self-report data, which is prone to social desirability bias

:( May be gender or cultural bias- no consideration of how gating may influence different groups

Parasocial relationships

• One-sided relationships, someone develops an attachment to another person (usually a celebrity) who is unaware of the relationship

  • Can happen in any one-sided scenario, e.g. fictional characters and readers or teachers and students

• Often seen as abnormal or obsessive relationships that develop in emotionally unstable people

• Formed to make up for deficits in life, such as love or friends

• Factors

  • Age- more likely during adolescence

  • Gender- males more likely to develop with sports personalities, females more likely to develop with entertainment celebrities

  • Education- people with a lower level of education are more likely to develop with celebrities, possibly due to a lack of ability to reason that reality and fiction are distinct

Celebrity attitude scale

1. Entertainment-social level- discussing the celebrity with friends and enjoying the entertainment provided by the celebrity. May be experienced by many fans

2. Intense-personal level- feelings become more personal and border on obsessive, person develops an emotional attachment to the celebrity, for example spending lots of money to follow them on a tour around the world to stay physically close to them. May be experienced by a small number of fans

   1. Start to believe the relationship is real

3. Borderline-pathological level- developing uncontrollable feelings for the celebrity and behaving very obsessively, for example stalking or trying to break into their home. May be experienced by a very small number of fans

:) Study- negative correlation between level of education reached and interest in celebrities

:) Study- more young people show higher levels of attraction to celebrities, may be influenced by the fact young people spend more time interacting with media sources

:( Lots of evidence for the theory relies on self-report data, which is prone to social desirability bias

Absorption-addiction model

• Attempt to escape the reality of their own lives and relationships

• Absorption- intense involvement in finding information about the personal life and career of the celebrity in an attempt to feel closer to them

• Addiction- person becomes addicted to learning more about the celebrity

  • May lead to risky behaviours to try and build the relationship, such as stalking or acting like they are actually in a relationship with the celebrity

1. Entertainment-social level- most people enjoy discussing celebrities with friends, and find this level of involvement in their life interesting

2. Intense-personal level- for some people, a personal interest in a celebrity may intensify and become obsessive, sparking off a parasocial relationship as the individual feels an artificial closeness to them

3. Borderline-pathological level- in a very small number of people, the interest develops even further and the behaviours associated with the relationship become abnormal and uncontrollable- may fantasise about their life with the celebrity, believe they are in a real relationship with them, or stalk them

:) Study- 600 participants completed a personality test then were interviewed about celebrity attitudes. 1/3 had signs of Celebrity Worship Syndrome- 20% of these were entertainment-social, 10% intense-personal and 1% borderline-pathological. Shows scale of parasocial relationships from normal to abnormal

:) Study- positive correlation between scoring high on the CAS and having low quality real relationships

:) Understanding thoughts and behaviours that precede borderline-pathological tendencies may help identify those at risk before their behaviour progresses into criminality

:( Behaviours like celebrity stalking are complex and can have many triggers, making it hard to study

:( Lots of evidence for the theory relies on self-report data, which is prone to social desirability bias

:( Studies are correlational, cannot establish cause and effect

Attachment theory explanation

• Believed that attachment types from infancy can influence development of parasocial relationships

• Secure- unlikely

  • Value physical closeness and seek out relationships with others due to ability to trust easily

  • Find building face-to-face relationships easy, little need to engage in parasocial relationships

• Insecure-avoidant- least likely

  • Distrust others and tend to avoid developing relationships, including parasocial ones

• Insecure-resistant- likely

  • High separation anxiety, so may be very clingy

  • Crave the closeness of a relationship but fear rejection in real relationships- parasocial relationships allow a close attachment without the chance of rejection

  • As the celebrity is unaware of the relationship, the person is safe from the risk of being abandoned by the person they care about

:) Study- questionnaire measuring parasocial relationship traits and attachment type, found insecure-resistant were most likely to develop parasocial relationships with TV personalities, insecure-avoidant were least likely overall, secure were quite likely but not as much as insecure-resistant

:) Study- insecure-resistant people were more likely to predict more negative effects if their favourite TV characters were taken off-air, stronger relationship = worse negative effect

:( Possible that adult attachment types are different

:( Study- 299 participants, no link between attachment types and likelihood of forming parasocial relationships