Relationships: Factors Affecting Attraction (L1-4) Flashcards
(62 cards)
1
Q
What is Darwin’s concept of sexual selection?
A
- about the selection of characteristics which aid successful reproduction rather than survival
- but clear that reproduction ultimately aids survival
- certain physical characteristics like male peacocks tail are a sign of genetic fitness
- so female ones who select a male with certain tails are more likely to produce robust offspring which would continue into future gen
2
Q
What features are referred to as adaptive?
A
- they are an advantage and act as competition against other males for reproductive rights
- such as aggression
- means that is this aggressive male then reproduces then is likely this trait will remain in the population
3
Q
What is the basis of human behaviour?
A
- anisogamy
4
Q
What is anisogamy?
A
- refers to the differences between male and female sex cells, gametes
5
Q
Female sex cells?
A
- eggs or ova
- large
- static
- produced at intervals for a limited number of fertile years
- require significant investment of energy
6
Q
Male sex cells?
A
- sperm
- very small
- very mobile
- created continuously in vast numbers from puberty until old age
- do not need much energy to be produced
7
Q
What is a consequence of anisogamy?
A
- no shortage of fertile males
- fertile female is a rarer source since egg production is finite due to menopause
8
Q
What does anisogamy give rise to?
A
- 2 types of sexual selection
1. inter-sexual selection
2. intra-sexual selection
9
Q
What is inter-sexual selection?
A
- between sexes
- strategies that males and females use to select the other sex
- preferred strategy of female since quality over quantity as sperm is plentiful
10
Q
What are the male strategies to increase opportunities for mating success?
A
- courtship rituals
- size
- sperm competition
- mate guarding
- sneak copulation
11
Q
What is meant by courtship rituals, male?
A
- allow males to display genetic potential
- through characteristics and resource abilities
12
Q
What is meant by size, male?
A
- males evolve to be bigger
- shows strength for success in comp with other males
- includes weaponry in some other species like antlers in deer
13
Q
What is meant by sperm competition, male?
A
- action of natural selection on males
- makes them more competitive by producing larger testicles, bigger ejaculations and faster swimming sperm
14
Q
What is meant by mate guarding, male?
A
- male fear of being cuckolded
- and spending resources raising another males child
- indulge in mate guarding to keep an eye on their partner
- remain in close contact with female partner to prevent them mating with other males
15
Q
What did Buss (1993) suggest regarding mate guarding?
A
- men are fearful of partners being sexually unfaithful
- women worry about emotional unfaithfulness, due to fear of their partner spending resources on other females
16
Q
What is sneak copulation, male?
A
- males mating with other females as well as their partner if given opportunity
- to increase chances of reproductive success
- women also gain as offspring have different fathers
- increases wider genetic diversity which increases survival
- females can benefit if partner is a rich man but then gets pregnant from genetically fit ‘stud’ but if caught risks abandonment
17
Q
What are the female strategies for inter-sexual selection?
A
- sexy sons hypothesis
- handicap hypothesis
- courtship
18
Q
What is the sexy sons hypothesis, female?
A
- devised by Fisher (1930)
- argued that females select attractive males as they will produce sons with the same attractive features
- increasing their sons and their own reproductive fitness
19
Q
What is the handicap hypothesis, female?
A
- Zahavi (1975) believes females elect males with handicaps
- allows them to display superior genetic quality
- may find males who drink or take drugs attractive as their ability to care for them demonstrates their genetic fitness
20
Q
What is courtship, female?
A
- use courtship to select males on the basis of reproductive fitness
- done through males demonstrating strength, health and ability to provide resources
- prolonged courtship benefits females as males must then invest time, effort and resources
- increases the chances of the male not deserting their partners after a successful damage
21
Q
What is intra-sexual selection?
A
- within each sex
- strategies between males to be the one who is selected
- preferred selection for males, quantity over quality as they have enough sperm
- comp between males to be selected to mate with a female
- winner then gets to pass on their characteristics to their offspring
- losers do not get to reproduce and pass on their characteristics
22
Q
What has intra-sexual selection given rise to?
A
- dimorphism, two forms
- males and females look different
- males likely to have physical competition so ice is considered, larger means more likely to reproduce
- females do not need to compete so no evolutionary drive favouring larger females
- in females, youthfulness is important since males prefer younger and more fertile females
23
Q
What are the behavioural consequences of intra-sexual selection?
A
- can be controversial
- such as males being more deceitful, intelligent and aggressive as these characteristics are needed to win the female against other males
- in order to retain their mate, males must also behave aggressively to protect their mate from others so aggression is necessary
24
Q
Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences +ve:
A
- research support for inter sexual selection
- Clark and Hatfield sent m+f psych students out to uni capus
- went to other students alone and said “I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?”
- no female agreed
- 75% of males agreed instantly
- supports view that females are choosier than males when it comes to sexual partner selection
- men instead evolved different strategy to ensure reproductive success
= Pawlowski and Dunbar examined idea that older women don’t disclose true age in personal advertisements
= since men judge partners based on age due to link to fertility
= was true for women between 35-50, hid age to find high quality partners before menopause
= supports intersexual selection - research support for intra
- David Buss used survey for over 10k adults in 33 countries
- asked q’s relating to various attributes that evolutionary theory predicts about intra sexual selection
- found f place greater value on resource related attributes like money and ambition than m did
- m valued physical attractiveness and youth so good reproductive capacity more than females
- supports idea that each gender competes with each other to gain sexual partner for different reasons
25
Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences -ve:
- assumes that one strategy is adaptive
- e.g. all males looking for younger females due to them being more fertile
- and that all females are looking for a 'stud'
- too simplistic, reductionist
- e.g. there are other factors that might be relevant such as if somebody wants a long term or lifetime relationship
- Buss and Schmitt (2016) argue m+f looking for long term relationships much choosier looking for partners that are loving, loyal and kind
- clearly more complex than simple explanation by evolutionary theory about sexual selection
= social + cultural influences underestimated
= partner preferences over past century influenced by changing social norms of behaviour
= develop much faster than evolution, have come about due to cultural influences, like contraception
= + women greater role in the workplace, no longer dependent on men for financial support
= according to Bereczkei et al (1997), social change means women's mate preferences have changed
= no longer rely on men being breadwinners
= evolutionary theory must account for social and cultural influences otherwise is incomplete
- sexual selection theory as evolutionary theory cannot explain partner preferences for gay and lesbian individuals
- homosexuals are not looking for genetic fitness, smt key to heterosexual relationships
- may assess other qualities relevant to the caring of offspring
- also, Lawson et al (2014) looked at personal ads placed by heterosexual and homosexual individuals, describing what they are looking for in their partner and what they are offering
- found that the preferences of homosexual men and women differed as they did with heterosexual men and women
- men emphasised physical attractiveness and women emphasised resources
- but the study did conclude that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not similar in choosing partners
26
What is meant by self disclosure?
- revealing personal information about yourself
27
Significance of self disclosure in relationships?
- romantic partners will reveal more about themselves as their relationship develops
- self disclosures about deepest thoughts and feelings strengthens romantic bond when used appropriately
28
Self disclosure early on in relationships?
- in early days of relationship want to learn a lot about our new partner
- more we learn more we like our partner
- revealing ourselves allows us to share likes/dislikes, hopes, interests and attitudes
- can share what is important to us
- then understand each other better
29
What are the theories towards self disclosure?
- social penetration theory, Altman and Taylors
- reciprocity, Reis and Shaver
30
What is the social penetration theory, SD?
- Altman + Taylor (1973)
- all about how relationships develop
- is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else
- giving away your deepest thoughts + feelings
31
How does the social penetration theory play out in romantic relationships?
- involves reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners
- when one partner reveals smt personal, indicates trust so encourages other partner to share personal info
- as more info disclosed partners penetrate more deeply into each others lives
- gain a better and greater understanding of eachother
- sd will encourage reciprocation and a stronger realtionship
32
What are the 2 elements of sd according to spt A+T?
- breadth and depth
- as both increase so will commitment of both partners
- Altman + Taylors describe breadth and depth like many layers of an onion
- as we peel the onion, we reveal more about ourselves
- happens gradually and overtime
- revealing too much can lead to TMI
- TMI could ruin relationship before it even starts
33
What was said about reciprocity of sd by Reese and Shaver?
- for relationship to develop needs to be reciprocity in disclosure
- e.g. if one partner discloses smt intimate + reveals smt about their true self, other will respond with own thoughts and empathy
- so balance of self disclosure between partners in romantic relationships
- increases intimacy and deepness of relationship
34
Self disclosure +ve:
- research support for spt
- Sprecher and Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples
- found strong correlation between several measuress of satisfaction + self disclosure for both partners
- men + women who reciprocated sd more satisfied and commited to partner
+^ = support by Sprecher et al
= confirmed reciprocity of sd being factor helping relationships with closeness and satisfaction
= both findings increase validity of theory that sd requires reciprocity for relationship success and to be long term
- has prac value
- can help ppl that want to improve communication in relationship
- romantic partners may use sd to increase intimacy
- e.g. Haas and Stafford found 57% of homosexual wen and women said open and honest sd main way they maintained + deepened relationship
- if partners who limit communication to small talk learn to use sd then could bring deeper satisfaction and commitment to relationship
- study supports idea, couples who have problems can be supported through sd
35
Self disclosure -ve:
- much research correaltional
- e.g. Sprecher+Hendricks, used self report to gather data
- much of findings correlational
- found between sd and increased satisfaction
- does not conclude self disclosure causes satisfaction
- could be that high satisfaction leads to more self disclosure
- or 3rd variable like amount of time with partner affecting satisfaction
- need to be mindful when determining cause and effect
= increasing breadth and depth leading to more satisfying and intimate relationships untrue for all cultures
= Nu Tang et al, research into sexual self disclosure
= found m+f in US, individualist culture self disclose more sexual thoughts + feelings than those in China, collectivist culture
= despite low levels of sd in China, levels of satisfaction no different than US
= so cannot make generalised ethnocentric conclusions about sd increasing satisfaction in romantic relationships
36
What is physical attraction?
- how appealing we find a persons face
37
General agreements and assumptions regarding physical attraction?
- general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive
- assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available
38
Explanation as to why physical attraction is important when forming relationships?
- based on evolutionary theory related to sexual selection
- Shackelford and Larsen, ppl with symmetrical faces seen as more attractive
- ^ honest sign of genetic fitness, cannot be faked
39
What type of faces are people supposedly attracted to?
- symmetrical faces, sign of honest genetic fitness
- neotenous/baby face, features like widely separated and big eyes, delicate chin and small nose
- ^ triggers protective and caring instinct
40
What are the factors affecting attraction?
- halo effect
- matching hypothesis
- filter theory
41
What is the halo effect?
- idea that physical attraction matters due to preconceived ideas of the personality traits an attractive person has
- these traits are almost universally positive
42
Main idea of the halo effect?
- how one distinguishing feature, physical attraction in this case
- has disproportionate influence on judgement of ones personality
43
Who summed up the halo effect and how?
- Dion et al (1972)
- used phrase 'what is beautiful is good'
- found that physically attractive people consistently seen as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
44
What is an example of the self fulfilling prophecy, he?
- belief that physically attractive people have 'nice' characteristics
- makes them even more attractive
- so we behave positively towards them
45
Halo effect +ve:
- research evidence to suggest physical attraction associated with halo effect
- Palmer and Peterson found physically attractive rated as more politically knowledgable + competent than unattractive
- so powerful, still persisted when participants knew 'knowledgable' people had no expertise
- implications in real world settings, attractive politicians getting more votes
- people not voting for capability but attractiveness
= Cunningham et al. (1995) found it might be consistent across a range of cultures
= found that female features of large eyes, small nose and prominent cheek bones were rated as physically attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males
= Kim (1997) found that USA and Korean students judged physically attractive people to be trustworthy, mature and friendly
= this was less evident for unattractive people
= seems that stereotypes of physically attractive people is strong in both collectivist and individualist cultures and supports the halo effect
46
Halo effect -ve:
- research evidence that contradicts the halo effect
- some people do not attach great importance to physical attractiveness
- Towhey asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph and some biological information
- participants also completed a MACHO scale which measured sexist attitudes and behaviour
- was found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness when judging the photograph
- those who scored low on the questionnaire did not value physical attractiveness very much
- so the influence of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors such as personality and attitudes that the judging person holds
47
What is the matching hypothesis?
- the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner
- instead, are attracted to a person who approximately ‘matches’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness
- implies that we take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’ to others when seeking a romantic partner
- Walster and Walster (1969) suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves not only in terms of physical attractiveness but also similar in terms of personality and intelligence etc
- means our partners may not always look appealing, but they match us
- Walster et al designed a study to test this called ‘the computer dance’
48
What is the procedure of the computer dance study?
tests the matching hypothesis theory
- research consisted of 177 male and 170 female students from the University of Minnesota in the USA.
- had to fill in a questionnaire about IQ and personality and were told that based on their answers, they would be allocated an ideal partner for an evening dance
-whilst filling in the questionnaire, each person was judged on their physical attractiveness by several judges
- the pairings were done randomly by computer (no one was allocated their “ideal partner”)
- after the evening dance, all participants were asked how much they liked their date and if they wished to see them again
- this was also followed up 6 months later using questionnaires
49
Findings of the computer dance?
- the hypothesis was not supported
- most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account
- was also found that personality and intelligence did not affect liking the dates.
- but Berscheid et al (1971) replicated the study but this time each participant was able to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness
- this time, the participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
50
Conclusion of computer dance study?
- we tend to seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
- e.g. if we judge ourselves on a rating of 6/10 then we are likely to choose a partner of similar attractiveness
- so choice of partner is a compromise as we do not want to get rejected by someone who has a rating of 10/10 on their beauty
51
The matching hypothesise +ve:
- research support for it for example Walster’s study
- study used a large sample of around 350 participants both male and female
- means that conclusions drawn from this study about the matching hypothesis are valid
- we can say that when choosing partners on attractiveness, we tend to choose partners who are similar to us in attractiveness
- this finding is useful for marriage websites in helping people to find their partners
= although dating is different to selecting a partner for a long term romantic relationship
= Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies
= found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
= meaning that in the real world people tend to have partners that are similar to them in attractiveness – supporting the matching hypothesis
52
The matching hypothesis, -ve:
- it is not supported by real-world research on dating
- Taylor et al (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site
- was a real world test of the matching hypothesis
- was found that online daters wanted to date and meet potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
- this study undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis as people who are not attractive will still seek an attractive partner
53
What is the filter theory?
- is an explanation of relationship formation
- states that different factors
progressively reduces the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities
- filters include social demography, similarity in attitude and complementarity of needs
- Kerchoff and Davis (1962) found that there were filtering factors at different stages of the partner selection process as people try to choose the, “best fit” partner for them and “narrow down the field of availables.”
54
What are the levels of the filter theory?
1, social demography
2, similarity in attitudes
3, complementarity of needs
55
What is the 1st level of the filter theory?
- based on social characteristics and concerns variables such as age, ethnicity, social background, geographical location (proximity)
- and the likelihood of meeting the person in the first
place
- can be restricted as we are likely to meet people from our own social and educational
groups, or people who live nearby (proximity)
- if we have similar social demography, we feel at ease
with that person and might find them more attractive as we have more in common with them
56
What is the 2nd level of the filter theory?
- based on psychological characteristics
- looks at whether people have the same attitudes, beliefs and values
- similarity in attitudes and values are of central importance at the start of a romantic relationship and can help predict stability
- especially if the relationship has lasted 18 months or less
- through self-disclosure, individuals weigh up the decisions about whether to continue or end the relationship based on this filter
- partners who have very different values and attitudes are not seen as suitable to continue their relationship, and they might filter out the person
57
What is the 3rd level of the filter theory?
- based on emotional characteristics
- people who have different needs in a relationship
and more attraction might occur if the two people have different needs that complement each other
- e.g. one person needs to be cared for, and the other person wants to care for someone
- both partners might like each other because they have mutual satisfaction and opposing needs that have
been met
- research has found that needs should be complementary and not similar in order for the relationship to work and be successful
- for instance if one person is dominant, the other person
should be laid back and might need their partner to tell them what to do sometimes
- long term relationships have more attraction when needs of partners are harmonious, rather than conflicting
58
What is Kerchoff and Davis procedure for the study on filter theory?
- conducted a longitudinal study of 94 couples from Duke University in the USA
- each person in the couple answered 2 questionnaires to assess the degree of shared attitudes, values and
complementarity of needs in order to assess closeness
- 7 months later they each completed another questionnaire to see how close they felt to their partner
- and this was compared to the first questionnaire
59
What are the findings of Kerchoff and Davis study on filter theory?
- couples were divided into two groups:
- short term partners had been dating 18 months or less
- it was found that similarity of
attitudes and values were important for closeness
- long term couples who had been dating for 18 months or more relied on complementarity of needs as a predictor for closeness
60
What is the conclusion of Kerchoff and Davis study on filter theory?
- long term and short term relationships rely on different filters to predict closeness,
attraction and permanence in a relationship
61
Filter theory +ve:
- research support for filter theory provided by Kerchoff and Davis’s original study
- showed that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationships
- whereas complementarity
is more important in longer relationships
- shows that the Filter theory is a valid explanation of factors affecting attraction
= Taylor (2010) found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 had married someone from their own ethnic group
= supporting the social demographic idea
= individuals seem to choose partners that were similar to them and had a similar background to them (ethnicity)
- Hoyle (1993) supports the filter theory when looking at
the importance of attitude similarity and sharing common values for attraction
- Hoyle found that perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction more strongly than actual attitude similarity
- Tidwell tested this hypothesis during a speed dating event whereby participants had to make quick decisions about attraction
- he measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using a questionnaire and found that perceived similarity predicted romantic liking more than actual similarity
61
Filter theory -ve:
- research by Levinger (1970) found that many studies have failed to replicate findings from Kerckhoff and Davis based on filter theory
- Levinger conducted research using 330 couples
- found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship became over time
- was also an issue on deciding when a short term relationship becomes a long term relationship
- Kerckhoff and Davis stated that at 18 months a relationship becomes long term, but this has been disputed
= criticised because it suggests people are attracted to each other because they have similar demography and social characteristics
= Anderson (2003) contradicted filter theory and found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that
they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction
= at the start of the relationship, their attitudes were not so similar
= this is called, “Emotional convergence"
- research using online dating has shown a lack of support for filter theory
- it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form
- internet has meant that
there is a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone
- and it is now easier to meet people who live far away, or who have a different ethnicity, social class and background
- we might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits, and this is very apparent now, compared to the past (30 years ago)
- therefore filter theory may lack temporal validity
