relationships (paper 3) Flashcards
(10 cards)
discuss evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
natural selection suggests that human behaviour is driven by the need to survive and reproduce, and for these offspring to survive, therefore genes that give a reproductive advantage will increase in the gene pool
inter sexual selection - the optimum strategy of females, due to the high investment cost of children and parental certainty, to pick the highest quality mate from a wide selection of available mates, according to attractive features indicating good genes
intra sexual selection - the optimum strategy of males, due to low investment costs and lack of parental certainty, to compete between each other for access to a large quantity of members of the other sex
through history, this concept favours large and dominant males as we can expect this competition to be made physical, therefore these genes also increase in the gene pool
male-female dimorphism - the distinct physical differences between males and females, explained by evolutionary pressures and the concept of sexual selection
enhanced secondary sexual characteristics (developed during puberty, related to sex but not directly involved in reproduction) are selected for by both sexes, leading to these traits becoming more common in the population
females look for qualities that will help raise a child to adulthood - resources/money or ability to gain this (intelligence), physical characteristics linked to dominance and ability to protect
males look for qualities of fertility that indicate production of healthy offspring - large breasts, youth, and a 0.7 waist to hip ratio indicates a female has reached sexual maturity and has the ability to breed but is not pregnant
research evidence to support evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Buss (1989) conducted a global survey where he surveyed 10,000 adults across 33 countries on partner preference when selecting a mate and found that males prioritised factors that indicated reproductive capacity such as chastity, youth, and good looks, while females prioritised factors that indicated resources such as money, ambition, and industriousness
this suggests that the actual preferences of males and females match those predicted by the evolutionary approach, and the study can be argued to lack cultural bias suggesting this theory reflects universal behaviour
Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) used a content analysis method to study 900 personal dating ads across four USA newspapers, and found that 42% of males were looking for youthful mates compared to 25% of females, and that men were more likely to emphasise their economic status in their adverts as opposed to women who were more likely to emphasise their looks
this supports the evolutionary theory explanation of females being more attracted to resources and males in search of females capable of reproduction
Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted a study where male and female college student confederates asked other students on campus one of three questions - ‘will you go out with me tonight?’, ‘will you go back to my house?’, ‘will you have sex with me?’ - and found that while 50% of both sexes agreed to a date, 0% of females agreed to sex compared to 75% of males
this supports the concepts of inter and intra sexual selection suggested by the evolutionary approach, suggesting that males will attempt to sleep with as many females as possible, while women are more selective
evaluation of evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
there can be a conflict between natural selection and sexual selection, some adaptations that are sexually selected for can also be a disadvantage in survival e.g. large and colourful peacock feathers are selected for due to sexual selection, but make it more difficult for peacocks to escape from predators
research by Singh (1993) found a cross cultural preference for a 0.7 hip to waist ratio
Cunningham (1986) edited images of females to give them more youthful facial features such as larger eyes and smaller noses and chins), and found that men were more attracted to these adapted images
the approach can be argued to suffer from alpha bias, as sexual differences may have been exaggerated
evolutionary explanations could be criticised for legitimising a gender double standard, and research conducted in this area can be seen as socially sensitive as findings could be used as justification for shaming women when they display sexual behaviour
theory does not explain homosexual partner preferences
explain the self-disclosure factor affecting relationships
self disclosure is the tendency of people to disclose more information to those they like, and to like people who reveal information about themselves, as it is seen as an indication of trust (comfortable enough to know that information will stay between the individuals involved)
Altman and Taylor developed social penetration theory - the suggestion that as a relationship develops between individuals, the breadth (type of topics discussed) and depth (level of information revealed) of interpersonal communication will increase from shallow levels to become more intimate
more self disclosure is not always good - individuals consider the motivations behind self disclosure (e.g. someone that discloses sensitive information to many people for attention is seen as less attractive than someone who reveals information because they are the person as special), and the appropriateness of the information revealed (breaking social norms by revealing information to early can decrease attraction)
relationships will only develop if there is reciprocity - both individuals must be active in disclosing information and responding appropriately
research evidence to support self disclosure
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) used a longitudinal observational study monitoring couples’ self disclosure patterns on dates, and found a positive correlation between the levels of self disclosure and measures of the quality of the relationship (satisfaction, love, and commitment), men and women were also found to have similar levels of self disclosure
this research suggests self disclosure is reciprocal, and that higher levels of self disclosure are linked to attractiveness towards a romantic partner
this study can be criticised as the data is only correlational, meaning we can not firmly establish a causal link so there is no way to be certain that findings are due to self disclosure causing attraction (could be the other way round, or could be a third factor)
evaluation of self disclosure as a factor affecting relationships
it is generally thought that women are better communicators and more willing to share intimate information, however this argument can be considered an example of alpha bias (Sprecher and Hendrick found similar levels of self disclosure)
theory can be criticised for being culturally biased and only a reflection of individualistic western ideals - findings by Tang (2013) suggest that people in China (collectivist society) have higher relationship satisfaction with lower levels of disclosure
explain filter theory
Kirchhoff and Davies (1962) suggest that there are certain limiting factors that affect the choice of partners, and that people only become attracted to those who pass through a series of similarity filters (field of available, and field of desirables)
1. social demography - determines initial meeting and effort required for continued meeting, we are more likely to come into contact with certain people based on factors such as location, level of education/economic status, social class, and religion
2. attitudes - people who have similar core values to us are seen as more attractive and compatible, this promotes self disclosure and the development of a relationship towards the beginning
3. complementarity - we are attracted to people who can provide for our emotional needs, partners should have differences that are mutually beneficial, if both enjoy or want the same thing this may lead to conflict, this is important for the success of long term relationships
research evidence to support filter theory
Kirchhoff and Davies (1962) conducted a longitudinal study on views of student couples who had wither been together for more or less than 18 months, utilised a seven ninth questionnaire and found that similarity of attitudes was the most important factor for those in short term relationships, and complimentary was the most important factor for success in long term relationships
this supports filter theory’s suggestion of the importance of attitudes and complementarity in attraction for romantic partners, however the sample used means the findings may not be generalisable to populations outside of young, educated americans
Taylor (2010) found that 85% of americans who married in 1998 married within their own ethnic groups
this real world example provides supporting evidence for the strong influence of social demography in the selection of partners
evaluation of filter theory
this theory can be criticised for having a correctional link as opposed to a casual one - similarity in attitudes of partners may not be a result of selection but convergence of beliefs and values through conversation, and complementarity may not be selected for, but developed as each partner finds their role in the relationship
filter theory can be argued to lack temporal validity - with the rise of online dating, filters like social class, education, and ethnicity are being broken down (also puts a greater focus on physical attraction, which is not considered in filter theory), similarly with the increase of globalisation and migration, relationship formations across ethnicities and cultures is more acceptable nowadays
one strength of filter theory is that, by highlighting the benefits of having provision for your emotional needs, and including the importance of complementing your own potential failings, it is a multifaceted theory that provides more than just a basic physical explanation of attraction
explain the physical attractiveness factor affecting relationships
we are more attracted to
