Relationships Flashcards
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
- natural selection- driven by need to survive and reproduce. Both M&F need to make sure children survive to adulthood, genes that give reproductive advantage will increase in gene pool
-inter sexual selection- strategy of one sex (females) due to high investment costs d parental certainty of children, pick highest quality mate from wide selection of available mates according to attractive feautures=good genes - infra sexual-(men)- due to low investment cost and lack of parental certainty, compete with each other for access to large quantity of members of other sex
-females- look for qualities that help raise child to adulthood- resources, physical characteristics linking to dominance (tall,healthy) - males- look for qualities of fertility indicating production of healthy offspring e.g large breasts, young facial feautures, 0.7 waist to hip ratio indicting sexual maturity
Evaluation studies for partner preference
Buss 1989- across 33 countries, surveyed 10,000 adults on partner preferences when selecting mate. Prioritised factors indicating reproductive capacity e.g younger age, chastity, good looks. Females prioritised recourses e.g money, ambition, industriousness. Suggests preferences of m m & f match prediction of evolutionary .Eval. Research conducted across multiple countries, lacks cultural bias and findings on evolutionary selection reflects true emic construct, universal across all cultures
-Dunbar and Waynforth- used content analysis method of 900 personal dating ads across 4 USA newspaper. Found 42% males look for youthful mates compared to 25% females. Men more likely to emphasis economic status in adverts, women more likely to emphasis looks. Supports theories of evolution women more attracted to status and resources, men looking for females capable of reproduction
Research on male and female mating strategies
- Clarke and Hatfield , 1989
- male and female student researchers asked students on campus ‘will you go back to my house’ ‘will you have sex with me’ ‘will you go out with me tonight’ 50% of both agreed to date. 75% of males agreed to sex . 0% females
Supports concepts of intra and inter sexual selection than males attempt to sleep as many as women as possible whereas women more selective
General evaluation of evolutionary theory
X- research in area socially sensitive, findings could be used as justification to shame women for sexual behaviour
X- evolutionary could be critisced for legitimising gender double standard between m & w. Sexual differences may also be over exaggerated suggesting alpha bias
X- does not explain homosexual partner preferences
- Cunningham found men more attracted to youthful faces. Singh found cross cultural preferences for 0.7 hip to waist ratio
Self disclosure
- tend to disclose more info to those we like as indication of trust
- Altman and Taylor- suggests relationship between individuals develop as breadth and depth of interpersonal communication increased from shallow levels to become more intimate=social penetration theory
Breadth- certain topics being discussed whilst certain areas not
Depth- more intimate information as trust develops - reciprocity- relationships develop when both disclose info and respond appropriately
- attributions- motivations behind self disclosure, if disclose to everyone less meaningful
- appropriateness- revealing info too early can lower attraction
Self disclosure study
- sprecher and Hendrick 2004
- longitudinal observation study watching couples self disclosure on dates, men and women similar levels of self disclosure . Positive correlation was found between amount of self disclosure and measures of quality of relationship (satisfaction, love, commitment)
- suggests reciprocal self disclosure limited to level of attractiveness towards romantic partner
- however, research correlational so may not be causal link. May self disclose to those more attracted to it or shared interests may lead to increased attraction and self disclosure
X- increased self disclosure could be culturally bias , reflection of individualistic western ideas. Tang found those in collectivist cultures higher levels of satisfaction with lower levels of disclosure
Filter theory
- Kirchhoff and Davies 1962 suggest certain limiting factors affecting choice of partners, based on field of available and field of desirables
- filter 1- social demography- factors e,g social class, level of education and economic status, more likely to come into contact with
- filter 2- attitudes- similar core values, more compatible helps self disclosure.
- filter 3- complementarity- partner who provide for emotional needs e.g one organising activities whilst other enjoys activities, avoids conflict, important for long term success relationships
Filter theory study
-Kirchhoff and Davies 1962. Investigations of filters.
- 7 month questionnaire on views and based longitudinal study using student couples either been together more or less than 18 months, found similarity of attitudes Important factor for short term relationship. Complementarity important for long term
- suggests importance of attitudes and complementarity in attraction for romantic partners
X- sample not generalisable outside young, educated Americans
X- lack temporal validity as relationship formations across ethnicities and cultures more acceptable likely due to globalisation and migration
Physical attractiveness and matching hypothesis
- attraction- more attracted to physically good looking, evolutionary explanation indication of health, good genes determine best genes for offspring
- Halo effect -physical attractive individuals assumed to be more successful in other areas of life e,g intelligence, hard working, social able. Results I’m positive interactions, self fulfilling prophecy leads to higher success
- matching hypothesis - look for romantic partners similar level of attraction , avoid rejection of those too attractive, retain partners by choosing someone who will not leave for someone else
Matching hypothesis study
- Murstein 1972
- used photographs of 197 couples (engaged or dating), photographs of each partner alone used to judge each person individually. 8 judges rated individual photographs according to attractiveness. Found photographs of couples consistently given similar attractiveness compared to randomly matched pairs
- suggests predicted by matching hypothesis, individuals highly likely to select partners similar attractiveness as themselves
- supported by Feingold- completed meta analysis including 18 studies on matching hypothesis containing total of 1644 couples and found overall positive correlation in attractiveness ratings of couples
Halo effect evaluation
- found dependents in court who are attractive likely to receive lower sentences than less attractive defendants by juries, suggesting attractiveness implies innocence (Landy and aronson 1969)
Social exchange theory
- thibault and Kelly 1959
-economic theory of romantic relationships suggests relationship similar to cost/benefit analysis - rewards and cost- both partners looking for mutually beneficial arrangements resulting in stable relationships. Rewards may be; self esteem, financial security. Costs- stress, losing financial security,
- comparison level- estimation of how rewarding relationship should be, compare current to previous relationships, relationships in media. Linked to feelings of self worth
Comparison of alternatives- look at other potential partners and consider if higher profit, if higher profit with alternative, current relationship ends
Social exchange theory study
- longitudinal questionnaire study with 17 female, 17 male pps in heterosexual relationships, questions including costs, rewards, investment and comparisons with alternatives. Findings indicated cost benefit applied less to start of a relationship, but costs/benefits considered more as relationship developed. Also costs and benefits considered against alternatives who became less attractive overtime and satisfaction increased so did commitment
-suggests people do consider ending relationship by assessing alternate options and overall profit - supported by Spreecher 2001- found study of 101 dating couples found as availability of alternative partners increased levels of commitment and satisfaction decreased. Suggesting more satisfied when no alternatives
- however, research on activity dating couples could have low validity as very few couples regularly intensively rate relationships as required by Rusbult, consideration of rewards and costs more likely to be somewhat unconscious process
Equity theory
-economic model, all assumptions of SET. However Hatfield suggests missing factor of equity
- equality- more satisfaction in relationship if balance of rewards and costs between partners similar. Both partners profits minus loss should be same.
Over benefits- if partner gets more overall profit will feel personal shame & pity towards other partners feel guilty
- under benefits- if one partner more costs will feel resentful and angry towards other person
- change in perspective- what was once considered unfair may change, Hatfield 2011suggests in later stages of relationships, successful couples less likely to keep score
Study on equity theory
- utne- used self report method on newly married couples who had been together for at least 2 years. Questionnaire recorded perceived level of equality and measure of relationship stability and distress . Found partners felt very treated with more equity thought the relationship was more stable, and more happier. Utne found no sex differences in concern for equality
- suggests predicted by equity theory feelings of equality important in stability of relationships
- however research correlational rather than lack of equity resulting in dissatisfaction may be dissatisfaction results in partner perceiving relationship unequal
X- equity/SLT theory culturally biased , satisfaction levels less important in collectivist societies when considering romantic partners, with relationships being arranged. Avoiding shame may play more of role in relationship maintenance however consideration of profit and loss included in initial set up of relationship
