Relationships Flashcards
(56 cards)
Sexual selection
Sexual selection argues that if a characteristic increases the chances of reproduction then the characteristic will be adaptive because the animal will have more offspring. Sexual selection is the selection of characteristics that increase mating success. Two types of sexual selection are intra-sexual and inter-sexual
Intra-sexual selection
Preferred choice for males. Competition between members of the same sex for access to members of the opposite sex, most cases is males fighting each other for the female.
Inter-sexual selection
Preferred choice for females. Where one sex chooses traits they desire in the other sex- quality strategy. Females choose to mate with males who are strong and can provide resources. Males choose females who look youthful as a sign of fertility
Conflict between natural selection and sexual selection
Sometimes traits that are attractive to a mate make an individual less likely to survive, so sexual selection can conflict with natural selection more generally. For example female peacocks find brightly coloured tails of males attractive but it also makes them more noticeable to predators. This created the handicap principle theory
The Handicap Principle
Zahavi (1975) argued that displaying a noticeable handicap to survival actually indicates survival strength because if an individual has managed to survive (and ancestors survived to reproduce) despite having the unhelpful characteristic, then they must have superior genes. Can be applied to humans to, masculine facial features result from high testosterone which causes immune system to be less responsive so these features can be an indicator of ‘quality’ genes as they can afford the handicap. Women may choose men with this handicap because it shows a superiority of genes.
Buss (1989)- Gender differences in partner preferences
Questionnaires were used to collect data from over 10,000 men and women from 37 different cultural groups. Women valued variables associated with gaining resources (money, safe environment) more highly than men. Men valued variables associated with reproductive capacity (youth) more highly than women. Concluded that women have had limited access to resources needed to provide for themselves and offspring and men’s reproductive success is limited by finding fertile women so they are attracted to women who are more fertile. Not a truly representative study but it is cross-cultural suggesting universality
Sexual strategies theory
Theory argues that men and women apply various different strategies for choosing partners, depending on the situation. These strategies have evolved to help them meet the different requirements they have of long-term and short-term partners. Women try to assess the quality of genes like genetic fitness or height whereas males of availability and fertility
Strengths and Weaknesses of sexual strategy theory
The idea that men and women have different strategies is supported, the argument for men seeking fertility is also supported.
There are more similarities than differences between men and women’s responses in Buss’s study, more difference between cultures rather than genders. Explanations of partner choice don’t take into account social determinants of behaviour (women have less opportunities than men which can influence women’s choices). Lots of evidence comes from studies of other animals, cannot be generalised to humans
Social Exchange Theory
Suggests that people try to maximise rewards from a relationship (attention, self-esteem, happiness), and minimise costs (time, money). If the relationship is to continue, then the rewards must not be outweighed by the costs, instead there should be profit so relationships are formed using a ‘cost-benefit analysis, striving to get more and give less can cause an unequal relationship
Comparison Level (CL)
The amount of reward you believe you deserve to get based on experiences in previous relationships, which feeds into the expectations of our current one. Influenced by social norms. CL changes as we acquire more data from experiences
Comparison Level for alternatives (CLalt)
In current relationship you consider whether you could gain greater rewards and fewer costs from another relationship or being on your own. Social exchange theory predicts that we will stay in our current relationship only as long as we believe it is more rewarding than an alternative but if an alternative is better we are more likely to end the relationship
Relationship Development (SET)
1.Sampling, we consider potential rewards and costs of a relationship and compare it with others available at the time
2.Bargaining, we give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile
3.Commitment, each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other, lowering costs
4.Institutionalisation, relationship norms and expectations are firmly established
Physical attractiveness
Important factor in relationship formation, usually how appealing we find a person’s face, general agreement across and within cultures. Cunningham(1986) found some in a study asking 75 males students to rate photos of 50 women. He found several features for attractiveness- large eyes, small noses, small chins, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks. Generally men are more likely than women to report appearance as important in attraction but both men and women consider it important for a short-term partner.
Self-disclosure
Revealing personal information about yourself, including your views and feelings. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops . These revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately
Filter Theory
People filter possible mates from a range of candidates. Suggests that people use different methods at different levels of the process. Begin with proximity variables such as geographical location, we then move to more similarity variables such as social class and then complementary variables to seek personality characteristics which complement our own values
Social demographic filter
The first filter. Initially we for, a ‘field of availables’- these are potential people to form a relationship with. Based on social and demographic factors such as age, religion, living near eachother, etc
Similarity in attitudes filter
We narrow the set of available people down to a smaller ‘field of desirables’- these are people who a relationship is more likely to progress with. This filter is based on sharing similar attitudes, values and interests, or similar social class.
Complementarity filter
In the longer term, relationships will progress if both partners are fulfilling each others needs, so this filter is based on two people being a good complement to each other
Matching Hypothesis Study
Walster et al (1966)- A ‘computer dance’ was advertised to uni students and tickets sold to 376 men and 376 women. The people selling tickets secretly rated each student for attractiveness. Pptts were told that a computer would match them with a date for the dance with similar interests (didn’t know they were in a study), instead they were randomly paired. During the dance pptts filled a questionnaire about their date and were contacted 4-6months later to see if they went on further dates. Pptts rated as more attractive were more liked and more frequently asked on further dates than less attractive, those with similar attractive levels were not significantly more liked than those with a different level. The matching hypothesis wasn’t supported, people prefer attractiveness regardless of their own attractiveness. Low ecological validity, very different from normal dating as they didn’t choose their dates, raters had a small amount of time to rate and people prepared for the dance and may have become more attractive and not matched their previous rating
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Matching Hypothesis
White (1980) studies 123 couples. He found that couples who were only dating at the start of the study were more likely to have progressed to a serious relationship 9 months later if both partners were similarly attractive.
Results from Walster’s didn’t support it. Ignores individual differences as not all people place importance on physical attractiveness
The Investment Model-
Rusbult(1980)- The stability of a relationship overtime is determined by how committed the individuals are to the relationship, and that depends on: satisfaction- if a persons needs are fulfilled, comparison with alternatives- could they be better fulfilled elsewhere, investment which acts as a deterrent to leaving a relationship
Quality of alternatives
Attractive alternatives- may leave the relationship. No alternative exists- may maintain the relationship. Sometimes having no relationship is a more attractive alternative than being in an unsatisfactory one
Intrinsic investments
What we put directly in: time, money, personal info
Extrinsic Investments
Resources associated with the relationship: shared pet, friends, children, memories