Relationships Flashcards
What type of relationships is this topic concerned with?
Romantic relationships - (most research is on heterosexual relationships, but this is now changing).
What evolutionary theory did Darwin (1871) put forward for partner preferences? How does sexual selection compare to Darwin’s original theory of natural selection?
Darwin’s theory of sexual selection (1871) - after his theory of natural selection (1859), Darwin recognised that natural selection alone could not explain certain animal characteristics (e.g why male peacock’s have an extravagant tail).
Natural selection:
-Natural selection is the principle that any behaviour/trait that allows a species to survive and reproduce is naturally selected so that it can continue into future generations - i.e there is a change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population - these traits are ‘adaptive’ because they provide a survival advantage in the environment.
-Referred to as ‘survival of the fittest’ - because the ‘fittest’ possess traits which are best adapted for their environment, making them more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on the genes and traits that aided their success (survival).
-E.g Gaining opposable thumbs, increased lung capacity, walking upright, developing large brains, fear of spiders (poisonous and deadly) - all of these traits provided a survival advantage so we’re passed on via natural selection.
Sexual selection:
-Sexual selection, a mode of natural selection, is the principle that any behaviour/trait that increases the likelihood of reproductive success is passed on (naturally) to future generations - i.e there is a change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population - these traits are ‘adaptive’ because they provide a sexual advantage in that they aid reproductive success - they may become exaggerated over succeeding generations of offspring.
-Referred to as ‘survival of the sexiest’ - because the ‘sexiest’ possess traits which are desirable to the other sex (arises from a preference), making them more likely to have reproductive success and ultimately pass on the genes which aided their success.
-Sexual selection depends not on a struggle for existence in relation to other species or external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex (generally the males) for the possession of the other sex.
-A male peacock’s extravagant tail would appear to threaten the bird’s survival, yet it persists - sexual selection explains this.
-“Sexual selection means choosing your mate to keep the offspring looking great.” - it’s generally the females who choose as they are born with certain preferences (as well as instincts that have evolved to pick up invisible signals - e.g scent).
How does sexual selection offer an evolutionary explanation of partner preference? What are examples of male and female traits that increase reproductive success?
Partner preference:
-Sexual selection offers an evolutionary explanation of partner preference because it suggests that a partner is chosen based on their perceived genetic fitness, and that the changes in inherited characteristics (‘adaptive traits’) across generations are indicators/signs of such genetic fitness.
-Therefore, according to sexual selection, who you choose and why (partner preference) is determined by an innate drive to seek / preference of traits characteristic of genetic fitness so that your offspring can also have these traits - these traits are more likely to achieve reproductive success because they are more likely to produce robust offspring (healthy immune system) who can then themselves go on to have reproductive success and continue to pass on the successful traits (that make them desirable) to their offspring.
-Consequently, the trait itself is passed down, as well as the preference for such a trait in future generations through genes.
Examples of traits that increase reproductive success:
-Male traits - facial hair (sign of maturity), masculine features (particularly attractive when women ovulating), height, strength (broad chest and shoulders with narrow hips), aggression - some of these traits enable both the female and the offspring to feel protected and provided for, so are likely to be selected by females, whilst others provide an advantage for a male in terms of competition with other males for reproductive rights (e.g aggression).
-Female traits - youth (sign of fertility), wide hips, larger breasts - these traits are signs to a male that they are fertile.
What is anisogamy? What are the main differences between male and female gametes? What does this lead to in terms of investment in reproduction?
Anisogamy refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes).
-Male gametes (sperm) are small, highly mobile, require little energy to be produced and are created continuously in vast numbers from puberty to old age. Testosterone is continually released into the bloodstream, meaning men are always primed for mating.
-Female gametes (eggs/ova) are relatively large, static, require a significant investment of energy and are produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years (a short window). Oestrogen levels fluctuate during the menstrual cycle and decline during menopause, hence why women are not always primed for mating.
Consequence of anisogamy (investment in reproduction):
-Because of anisogamy, there is a difference in the level of investment in reproduction between males and females.
-Female investment in reproduction is far greater than male investment because their reproductive resources are more precious - a fertile female is rarer so the consequences of making the wrong choice of partner are more serious for females.
-Females are also perhaps more invested because of greater post-coital responsibility (they have to physically carry the child for 9 months).
What does anisogamy form the basis of? What is human reproductive behaviour? What are the 2 types / evolutionary mechanisms of sexual selection?
Anisogamy forms the basis of human reproductive behaviour - any behaviour which relates to opportunities to reproduce.
-Anisogamy is important to partner preference because it gives rise to 2 types / evolutionary mechanisms of sexual selection and 2 different mating strategies.
1) Intra-sexual selection - selection within each sex - mate competition.
2) Inter-sexual selection - selection between the sexes - mate choice.
What is intra-sexual selection? Which sex prefers this mating strategy? What has it led to in humans? How does it work? What are the behavioural consequences of intra-sexual selection?
Intra-sexual selection refers to the competition within each sex (usually males) to access and mate with the other sex - i.e mate competition.
-The preferred mating strategy of males - suits them to compete because reproductive success for males is achieved by quantity over quality (because there is a plentiful supply of sperm - enough to fertilise every woman on earth with little energy, so only needs to get lucky once in terms of mating with a women with desirable traits to produce robust offspring with their genes).
-Winners get to mate and pass on their genes (including the traits which led to success). Losers do not get to mate and their genes are not passed on (or the gene pool for their offspring is the least desirable).
-This strategy has given rise to male-female dimorphism (‘two forms’) in humans - the obvious differences in shape and size between males and females of the same species - e.g secondary sexual characteristics (not directly involved in reproduction), like facial hair, a deeper voice, bigger breasts and wider hips, all of which develop at puberty and are distinguishable between the sexes, are accentuated.
How it works:
-Competition for mates between individuals of the same sex (males in particular) affects the evolution of certain traits.
-If a certain trait increases the individual’s chances of reproduction, it will be passed on.
-E.g male size and strength - in females there is an evolutionary drive towards favouring larger/stronger males - they have an advantage in physical competition with other males and therefore provide an advantage for males competing for reproductive rights. There is no such evolutionary drive in males favouring larger females as they don’t need to compete for reproductive rights.
Behavioural consequences:
-The characteristics that are passed on are those that allow a male to outcompete his rivals - e.g deceitfulness, intelligence and aggression (to protect from competing males).
-Also a preference for youth in females (e.g rosy cheeks and a narrow waist) - males compete for females with these traits.
What is inter-sexual selection? Which sex prefers this mating strategy? What did Trivers (1972) say about why women prefer this strategy? How does it work? What is the sexy sons hypothesis?
Inter-sexual selection refers to the strategies that males/females use (usually females) to choose a mate - i.e mate choice.
-The preferred mating strategy of females - suits them to choose because reproductive success for females is achieved by quality over quantity (because eggs are rarer than sperm, so females must be more choosy in relation to the mate they reproduce with - hence female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a genetically fit partner who is able to provide resources (for the offspring).
-Trivers (1972) pointed out that the female makes a greater investment of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring. Women have to be more choosy because they stand to lose more if they invest heavily in substandard partners (links back to anisogamy) - in the animal kingdom, the only time when males might be the one’s with the choice is if they are the ones looking after the offspring (therefore investing heavily).
How it works:
-It is the female preference/choice which determines the features that are passed on to the offspring.
-E.g if height is considered an attractive male trait, it would increase in the male population over successive generations. This is because, in each generation, females will select the tallest males - this trait gradually becomes exaggerated (the runaway process).
-Fisher (1939) - sexy sons hypothesis - the genes we see today are those that enhanced reproductive success - therefore, the preferences for these ‘sexy’ traits are also perpetuated because the sons who inherit the ‘sexy’ trait are selected by successive generations of females.
-Inter-sexual selection (female choice) arguably determines the terms for intra-sexual selection (male competition).
What is the research support for intra-sexual selection? What were the findings? How was there cultural variation?
Buss (1989) - carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries (cross-cultural).
-Buss asked questions relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference.
-Found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics (e.g maturity (older), ambition, good financial prospects), whereas males valued physical attractiveness and youth as signs of fertility - all links to intra-sexual selection because there is competition to be selected according the extent which these traits are possessed (about what men and women go for in a mate).
-Good financial prospects for men was high in Indonesia and Nigeria, but low in the Netherlands and Great Britain.
-Chastity was seen as very important in China and India, but virtually irrelevant in Scandinavian countries.
Conclusion:
-Supports the clear sex differences in partner preferences as well as sexual selection theory predictions.
What is the research support for inter-sexual selection? What were the findings?
Clark and Hatfield (1989) - sent out male and female psychology students across a university to approach other students individually with the question ‘I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?’
-Found that not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas 75% of males did.
-Supports the idea that females are choosier (quality over quantity) than males when it comes to selecting sexual partners.
What are the strengths and limitations of sexual selection as an evolutionary explanation for partner preferences?
Strengths:
-Scientific - founded on evolutionary theory - a scientific basis.
-Theories about reproductive behaviour consistent with objective differences between male and female gametes - i.e anisogamy.
Limitations:
-Lack of temporal validity - not as relevant to today’s society. Social and cultural developments such as the acceptance and availability of contraception seem to undermine the relevance of evolutionary factors. Women’s greater role in the workplace also means they are less dependent on men to provide them with resources. Bereczkei (1997) - argued that social change has led to women’s mate preferences no longer being resource based.
-Biologically determinist and reductionist.
-Buss and Schmidt (2016) - argues that males and females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships.
-Alpha bias - Darwin (1871) portrays male promiscuity as normal and acceptable as they need to have as many sexual partners as possible to pass in their genes, whereas promiscuity in women is pressured as abnormal and unacceptable - reinforced existing stereotypes about societal standards for relationships, and allows women to be demonised for behaving like men (evolutionarily).
-Cultural bias - most research (except Buss 1989) looks at western relationships.
-Cannot explain homosexual partner preferences as gay and lesbian people are not assessing genetic fitness. Lawson et Al (2014) found that the preferences of homosexual men and women differed in the same way as the preferences of heterosexual men and women (i.e men emphasised physical attractiveness, women emphasised resources), therefore undermining the exclusively evolutionary component of partner preference.
-Social construct - the whole idea of partner preference being evolutionarily determined may actually ignore environmental factors that have constructed such behaviours (e.g male promiscuity).
-Lack of falsifiability - evolution has already occurred so it is difficult to test experimentally.
-Implications on step-father’s - raising another man’s children is a disaster in evolutionary terms because resources are wasted nurturing genes that are not yours - although perhaps explains why infidelity causes sexual jealousy from an evolutionary perspective.
-Conflict between sexual selection and natural selection - why would certain traits be sexually selected if they appear to decrease the likelihood of survival (e.g male peacock’s tail makes it more likely to be hunted).
What are the 3 factors affecting attraction?
1) Self-disclosure
2) Filter theory
3) Physical attractiveness
What is self-disclosure? How does self-disclosure develop throughout a relationship? What impact can it have on a relationship when used appropriately?
Self-disclosure, coined by Jourard (1971), involves revealing personal information about yourself to a romantic partner as a relationship develops.
-Must be used wisely and effectively at a stage where it will be welcomed and reciprocated (not too much too soon).
Development of a relationship:
-Early days - we try to learn as much as we can about our partner, including our likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, interests and attitudes.
but the information disclosed is quite shallow.
-Deeper, more personal information is withheld so not as to deter our potential partner.
-As time progresses, trust is built, thus more personal information is disclosed.
Impact on relationship:
-Self-disclosure has a vital role in a relationship beyond the initial attraction.
-These self-disclosures concern one’s deepest thoughts and feelings, therefore they can strengthen a romantic bond by building trust.
-This trust also leads to greater intimacy (emotional and sexual) in romantic relationships, which in turn leads to greater satisfaction - can’t have intimacy without trust.
What does social penetration theory say about self-disclosure?
Altman and Taylor (1973) - Social penetration theory of how relationships develop:
-Says self-disclosure is a gradual process.
-As romantic partners increasingly disclose more and more personal/sensitive information, they ‘penetrate’ more deeply into each other’s lives.
What are the 2 dimensions/elements of self-disclosure according to Altman and Taylor? How does the breadth and depth of self-disclosure develop over time? What metaphor illustrates this? What is the consequence of increased breadth and depth on a relationship? What is the alternative?
Altman and Taylor split self-disclosure into 2 dimensions/elements - breadth and depth.
Development of breadth and depth:
-Illustrated by the layers of an onion.
-At the start of a relationship, we disclose a lot about ourselves. But this information tends to be shallow, superficial and ‘low-risk’ (outer layers of an onion) - i.e we would reveal this to friends or co-workers.
-If we were to reveal too much, we could potentially jeopardise the relationship before it has even got going.
-As a relationship develops, self-disclosure becomes deeper to reveal our true selves (more and more layers of the onion removed).
-Eventually, we are prepared to reveal intimate, ‘high-risk’ and perhaps ‘off-limits’ information - e.g painful memories, experiences or secrets - (the innermost layers of the onion).
Consequence of increased breadth and depth:
-As both the breadth and depth of information increases, romantic partners become more committed to one another as trust builds.
Alternative:
-‘Depenetration’ is the term Altman and Taylor used to describe how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less.
-This causes them to gradually disengage from their relationship as they lose trust and commitment.
What factor of self-disclosure did Reis and Shaver (1988) identify as important for the development of a relationship? What does it involve? Why might a one-sided form of self-disclosure be harmful?
Reciprocity:
-For a relationship to develop and be successful, there has to be a balance of self-disclosure between partners.
-When one partner discloses something that reveals their true self, the other partner responds with empathy and then shares their own intimate thoughts and feelings.
-This reciprocal element leads to greater intimacy and a deepening of the relationship.
-If a relationship is one-side, in that only one person discloses their intimate thoughts and feelings, it could give the impression that the other person has something to hide or is less committed to the relationship - this undermines trust.
How does Sprecher et Al (2013) support the role of self-disclosure in relationships?
Sprecher et Al (2013) - investigated the role of self-disclosure and reciprocity.
-156 American University students took place in 1-to-1 Skype conversations.
-Condition 1 - self-disclosed in a reciprocal manner, taking turns to ask questions.
-Condition 2 - did not self-disclosed in a reciprocal manner - one disclosed while the other listened.
Findings:
-Condition 1 participants reported a greater liking, closeness, similarity and enjoyment to one another compared to Condition 2.
Conclusion:
-Suggests that reciprocated self-disclosure has positive outcomes for romantic relationships - more satisfying.
What are the strengths and weakness of self-disclosure as a factor affecting attraction?
Strengths:
-Research support - increases the validity of the explanation that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships beyond just the initial attraction.
-Real-world application - self-disclosure can be used as a tool to help people improve communication in their relationship.
-Haas and Stafford (1998) - found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationship.
-Implications for society and economy - self-disclosure (as a skill) may be encouraged in relationships counselling, which is a big industry. Suggests self-disclosure can help people with relationship problems, especially if they’re invested in the relationship (e.g children) and want to avoid divorce or a family breakdown.
-Compatibility with filter theory (see ahead) - self-disclosure enables and incorporates an assessment of the similarity of attitudes (filter 2) and the complementarity of needs (filter 3) between partners.
Weaknesses:
-Cultural differences (relevant for all relationships topics) - self-disclosure may be culturally relative.
-Tang et Al (2013) - men and women in America (individualist culture) disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (collectivist culture). However, despite lower levels of disclosure in China, satisfaction levels remained no different from those of the US. Therefore, it would seem that self-disclosure as an essential factor is based on findings from individualist cultures and Western romantic relationships that are not generalisable to other cultures.
-Correlation not causation (reduces validity of explanation) - much of self-disclosure research is correlational - i.e greater self-disclosure does not necessarily cause greater satisfaction. It could be the other way round, where more satisfied partners feel more comfortable to self-disclose. Or, a third variable, such as time spent together, could be at play.
-Theories of relationship breakdown point out that partners often self-disclose more often and more deeply as their relationship deteriorates.
What is filter theory? How did Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) devise it? What 3 factors act as filters to narrow down partner choice?
Filter theory - an explanation of relationship formation whereby a series of different factors progressively (in stages) reduce the range of available romantic partners to a smaller pool of possibilities .
-We all have a ‘field of availables’ with whom we could realistically form relationships with, but not everyone who is available to us is desirable - the ‘field of desirables’.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) - compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term and long-term relationships - defined as either less than or more than 18 months.
-Devised filter theory to explain how such romantic relationships form and develop.
-3 filters that affect attraction / narrow down the ‘field of desirables’.
1) Social demography
2) Similarity in attitudes
3) Complementarity
What is social demography? How does it affect attraction and forming relationships according to filter theory?
Social demography (1st level of filter) - refers to a wide range of social factors which influence the chances of potential partners meeting in the first place.
-Social demographics include geographical location (proximity), social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion and so on.
-You are more likely to meet someone who is physically close to you and who shares several other demographic characteristics with you.
-Therefore, although there is a vast range and variety of potential partners, the realistic field is much narrower because our choices are constrained by our social circumstances.
-Anyone ‘too different’ (e.g too far away / too middle class / different faith) is discounted and filtered out.
-The outcome of this filtering is homogamy - you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar - this is because you are likely to have a lot in common with someone with shared demographic similarities - hence many, but not all, relationships are formed between partners who share many demographic characteristics.
-E.g Proximity - our most meaningful and memorable interactions are with people who are nearby (same school/university/area), therefore a key benefit of proximity for forming a relationship is accessibility.
What is similarity in attitudes? How does it affect attraction and forming relationships according to filter theory? What is its comparative importance in short-term and long-term relationships according to Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)? What other research support is there for this stage?
Similarity in attitudes (2nd level of filter) - shared basic beliefs and values (e.g politics, morals).
-Applied once the pool of potential partners / ‘field of availables’ has already been narrowed down by social demography.
-In the early stage of a relationship we find partners who share our basic values attractive - it’s about finding things in common to built trust.
-We tend to discount available individuals who differ markedly from us in their attitudes.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) - similarity of attitudes only important for couples in short-term relationships (less than 18 months). This is because there is a need for partners, at an early stage, to agree over basic values so that self-disclosure is possible.
Research support:
-Byrne (1997) - described the consistent findings that similarity (in terms of values) causes attraction as the ‘law of attraction’.
What is complementarity? How does it affect attraction and forming relationships according to filter theory? What is its comparative importance in short-term and long-term relationships according to Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)? What other research support is there for this stage?
Complementarity (3rd level of filter) - concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs and balance out each other’s traits.
-The final filter applied once the pool of potential partners / ‘field of availables’ has already been narrowed down by social demography and a similarity in core, basic values.
-Similarity becomes less important as a relationship develops and is replaced by a need for romantic partners to complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks - this is where opposites attract comes in.
-E.g one partner might be funny, the other might enjoy being made laugh, one partner might be the dominant one, the other might be more submissive.
-Complementarity is attractive because it gives two romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole - it adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish.
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) - found that the need for complementarity was more important for long-term couples (more than 18 months) - hence at a later stage of a relationship, opposites do attract.
Research support:
-Winch (1958) - evidence that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes are typical in the early stages of relationships, but that complementarity of needs was more important in partners happily married for several years.
How did Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) conduct their original study? How did their findings form the basis of and support their theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) - compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term and long-term relationships - defined as either less than or more than 18 months.
-A longitudinal study - both partners in dating couples completed questionnaires assessing 2 main factors - similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs.
-Relationship ‘closeness’ was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later.
Findings:
-‘Closeness’ was associated with similarity of attitudes for couples who had been together for less than 18 months, whilst complementarity of needs predicted closeness for couples in longer relationships.
-Provided evidence for similarity being important in short-term relationships and complementarity being more important later on.
What are the strengths and limitations of filter theory as a factor affecting attraction?
Strengths:
-Research support - Kerckhoff and Davis (1962), Byrne (1997), Winch (1958).
-Face validity - looks like it does what it says it does - the idea that we filter for certain key factors agrees with most individuals’ experiences of meeting people (in 1962, it was a valid explanation).
Limitations:
-Levinger (1974) - pointed out the lack of replicability of Kerckhoff and Davis’ findings due to social changes in dating patterns and problems defining the depth of a relationship in terms of its length - the original study assumed that partners who had been together for longer than 18 were in a more deeper, committed relationship.
-Temporal validity - social demography serves as a less decisive barrier now as opposed to 1962. Social advancements have given rise to the role of filters changing - e.g more technology and better transport has increased the ‘field of availables’ so that location/proximity no longer limits/filters partner choice. Social change has also given rise to an increase in relationships between partners from different ethnic backgrounds.
-Actual versus perceived similarity - actual similarly matters less in a relation than whether partners perceive themselves as similar. Montoya et Al (2008) - perceived similarity a stronger predictor of attraction as partners may perceive greater similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
-Problems with complementarity - Markey and Markey (2013) found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied. This suggests that similarity of needs, rather than complementarity, may be associated with long-term satisfaction for some couples.
-Direction of cause and effect - it might be that attitude alignment occurs over time, as opposed to filtering out people who differ from us from the outset. Davis and Rusbult (2001) - romantic partners bring their attitudes in line with one another.
What does physical attractiveness usually refer to? What are generally considered to be attractive features?
Usually refers to how appealing we find a person’s face - an important factor in the formation of romantic relationships.
-There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered to be physically attractive:
Attractive features:
-Facial symmetry - draws on evolutionary theory related to sexual selection, whereby symmetry is an honest signal of genetic fitness (can’t fake it).
-Neotenous (baby-face) features, such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose. This is because these trigger a protective or caring instinct.
What is the halo effect? How does it explain the importance of physical attractiveness in forming relationships? How is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? What 2 studies support the halo effect for physical attractiveness?
The halo effect describes how one distinguishable feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgments of a person’s other attributes.
-In this case, it refers to the pre-conceived idea of attractive people possessing universally positive personality traits - i.e attractive people are elevated to an almost angel-like status.
-This physical attractiveness stereotype is a self-fulfilling prophecy because the belief that good-looking people possess these attractive characteristics makes them even more attractive, so we behave positively towards them.
Research support:
-Dion et Al (1972) - found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. Supports the idea of the physical attractiveness stereotype.
-Palmer and Peterson (2012) - asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be. Attractive people were consistently rated higher. The halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when the participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
What is the matching hypothesis? What does it suggest about attractiveness? How was the hypothesis not supported?
The matching hypothesis - proposed by Walster and Walster (1969) - suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness, rather than choosing the most attractive people.
-Implies that we take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’, in order to balance evolutionary preferences (what we like) with the risk of rejection (hence we settle for someone ‘in our league’).
Research - Elaine Walster et Al (1966) - ‘The computer dance’:
-Male and female students were invited to a dance.
-They were secretly rated for physical attractiveness by 4 independent judges.
-They were also asked to fill in a questionnaire about themselves (personality, self-esteem etc), which they were told would inform a computer to decide their partner for the evening.
-In reality, they were paired up randomly.
-The students were later asked whether they found their partner attractive and would like to go on a second date with them.
Findings:
-They found that the most liked partners were the most physically attractive, rather than partners who matched them.
-Females rated as physically attractive were frequently asked out on a second dates by males not rated as physically attractive.
Conclusion:
-Matching hypothesis not supported - no correlation between the physical attractiveness of one partner, and the physical attractiveness of the other.
-Suggests that humans are quite shallow, in that we will always go for good-looking people first, before settling for someone of a similar attractiveness.
What other research further undermines the matching hypothesis?
Taylor et Al (2011) - investigated the matching hypothesis by monitoring the activity log on a dating website.
-Found that website users who tried to arrange a meeting with a potential partner (‘initiators’) were more likely to be less attractive than the users they were contacting (‘targets’).
-Undermines the matching hypothesis and it’s central point about matching attractiveness - we go for the best we can.
What other research supports physical attractiveness as an important factor in attraction?
Shackleford and Larsen (1997) - found that people with symmetrical features were rated as more attractive.
McNulty et Al (2008) - found that physical attraction is a huge part of a romantic relationship, even years after marriage.
What are the strengths and limitations of physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction?
Strengths:
-Research support for halo effect and against the matching hypothesis.
-Aligned with evolutionary theories. Cunningham et Al (1986) - found that women with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men. However, symmetry and features indicative of youth were found to be attractive across societies, suggesting that they are a sign of genetic fitness and have perpetuated in all cultures by sexual selection.
Limitations:
-There is evidence that some people do not attach much importance to attractiveness.
-Other factors, such as wealth, status and power, might equally contribute to finding someone attractive.
-Cultural bias - physical attractiveness prioritised more in Western culture. E.g less important in arranged marriages.
-Suggests humans are shallow and lack the free will to look beyond the superficiality of looks in initial attraction.
-Implications of halo effect on politics - suggests that politicians may be judged by voters, not on their suitability for office, but by their physical attractiveness.
What are the 4 theories of romantic relationships?
1) Social exchange theory
2) Equity theory
3) Rusbult’s investment model of commitment
4) Duck’s phase model of relationship breakdown
What theory did Thibault and Kelley (1959) propose? What does it say about how a relationship is maintained?
Social exchange theory (SET) - claims that behaviour in relationships reflects the economic assumptions of exchange - we want to minimise losses and maximise the gains associated with the relationship (the minimax principle).
-Assumes that romantic partners act out of self-interest in exchanging rewards and costs, but that there is mutual interdependence.
-A satisfying and committed relationship is maintained when the rewards exceed/outweigh the costs, and also when potential alternatives are less attractive than the current relationship - it’s a maintenance theory which assesses whether a relationship is economical.
-We judge a relationship in terms of the profit it yields - the profit level = rewards minus costs.
-If the relationship is running at a loss, it will result in feelings of dissatisfaction.
What are some examples of rewards and costs? What is meant by an opportunity cost? Why do rewards and costs vary?
Rewards (what we get out of the relationship):
-Companionship
-Sex
-Emotional support / feelings of being loved
-Praise
Costs (what we give up in / negative feelings about the relationship):
-Stress - e.g annoying habits.
-Time - e.g detracts from spending time with friends and family.
-Energy
-Compromise
-Opportunity cost - refers to the time, energy and resources that cannot be invested elsewhere whilst in the current relationship (e.g friends/family as alternatives) - this cost is on top of any direct costs.
Variation:
-Rewards and costs are subjective.
-What one person considers a significant reward or cost might be viewed as less significant by another person.
-The value of rewards and costs may also change over the course of the relationship (up or down).
What is Rusbult’s investment model (1983)? What theory is it an extension of? How does it view the importance of commitment? What 3 factors does the commitment level depend on? What else does the model highlight about how commitment manifests itself in everyday behaviour?
Rusbult’s investment model (1983) - an extension of social exchange theory (SET), but explores how satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment levels affect commitment, rather than just focusing on the cost and benefit analysis in social exchange theory.
-Developed by Caryl Rusbult with the rationale that many couples stay together despite costs outweighing rewards (SET) or the relationship being perceived as unfair (equity theory). Therefore, Rusbult suggested there must be other factors, not pointed out by SET, that keep these couples together.
-Rusbult’s model, another economic model of relationships, emphasises the central importance of commitment in maintaining relationships - commitment is defined as a romantic partner’s intention or desire to continue a relationship, reflecting a belief that the relationship has a viable, long-term future.
-3 factors that commitment depends on - satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.
-Rusbult’s model also highlights how commitment then expresses itself in everyday maintenance behaviour, called ‘relationship maintenance mechanisms’.
