Relationships
1)Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Sexual selection- behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to succeeding
generations of offspring
Human reproductive behaviour- behaviour relating to opportunities to reproduce increasing
survival chances of our genes
Sexual selection
Genes selected that promote survival (natural selection) or successful reproduction (sexual
selection)
Anisogamy
Male gametes- small, mobile, produced vastly, lack of energy required
Female gametes- large, static, produced in intervals, lots of energy required
Inter-sexual selection- between (inter) the sexes
Strategy used by each gender to select other gender.
Females invest in offspring, so more choosy when searching (Trivers)
Choices determined by attractive features (height which leads to the runaway process) average
height increases
Intra-sexual selection- within (intra) the sexes
Men use- quantity over quality (plentiful supply of sperm)
Males compete to mate with a female, so his characteristics passed to offspring
Males seek signs of fertility (youthfulness- narrow waist)
Males may benefit from acting aggressive to acquire fertile females
Evaluation:
-Research support- (evidence of women’s choosiness in heterosexual partner 75% males
agreed sexual request from opposite sex student. 0% females) shows females are choosier
than men in selecting sexual partners
-Research support- (support predictions of sexual selection theory. Survey of 10,000 adults in
33 countries. Females want resources. Men want reproductive capacity (youth)). Findings
reflect consistent sex differences in partner preferences
-Social and cultural influences underestimated- (evolutionary theories overlook influences of
social & cultural factors on partner preferences. Rapid changes in partner preference due to
changing social norms) Shows partner preferences are due to evolutionary & cultural influences.
2)Factors affecting attraction- Self disclosure
Self-disclosure- revealing personal info. Romantic partners reveal more as relationship develops
Social penetration theory
Partners penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives with self-disclosure, sign of trust
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure
Layers of onion metaphor- reveal lots of info moving deeper
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
Disclosure must be returned, not just breadth and depth
, Evaluation:
-Research support (predictions about self-disclosure derived from social penetration theory
been supported. Positive correlation between satisfaction and self disclosure) Findings increase
validity of theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to satisfying relationships
-Real world application- (research into self-disclosure helps people improve communication in
relationships. 57% homosexual men & women claimed self disclosure is a skill that can be
learned) Shows psychological insights can help troubled relationships
-Cultural differences- (increasing breadth and depth for all cultures doesn’t always lead to a
better romantic relationship. Less sexual self-disclosure in collectivist cultures (China) than
individualist (USA). Satisfaction levels were the same) Therefore self-disclosure theory is a
limited explanation of romantic relationships- not generalisable
3)Factors affecting attraction- Physical attractiveness
Physical attractiveness- applies to how appealing we find a person’s face
Matching hypothesis- attracted to a person who ‘matches’ us in physical attractiveness
Explaining importance of physical attraction
Symmetric face is attractive as it’s a sign of genetic fitness. Also attracted to neotenous (baby-
face) females shows caring instincts (Shackleford and Larsen). Both naturally selected
The halo effect
We have positive stereotypes of physically attractive people and assume they possess other
positive characteristics (kind, strong, sociable and successful) (Dion et al). Halo effect describes
how one distinguishing feature has disproportionate influence on our judgements of persons’
other attributes (personality)
Research on matching hypothesis
Walster & Walster- we look for partners with similar physical attraction
Created test - ‘The computer dance’
Procedure- Male and female students invited to a dance. Rated for physical attractiveness by
objective observers at start and completed questionnaire about themselves to decide partner for
evening (paired randomly)
Findings- unsupported hypothesis. Most liked partners were most attractive. Berscheid
replicated study, everyone could select their own partner. They tended towards those who
matched them in physical attractiveness
Conclusions- tend to choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
Evaluation:
-Evidence- physical attractiveness is associated with halo effect (attractive people rated as more
politically competent, implications for politics (Palmer and Peterson)) suggests politicians are
judged by looks so may receive fewer voters than they should.
-Research support of role of physical attractiveness (for evolutionary processes) - (Female
features (small nose, large eyes, prominent cheekbones) rated attractive across cultures,
attractive features are consistent - Cunningham) Shows importance of physical attractiveness
makes sense at evolutionary level
-Matching hypothesis not supported by real-world dating into dating - (Online dating choices do
tend to be for more attractive people (Taylor et al.) Undermines validity of matching hypothesis
1)Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Sexual selection- behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to succeeding
generations of offspring
Human reproductive behaviour- behaviour relating to opportunities to reproduce increasing
survival chances of our genes
Sexual selection
Genes selected that promote survival (natural selection) or successful reproduction (sexual
selection)
Anisogamy
Male gametes- small, mobile, produced vastly, lack of energy required
Female gametes- large, static, produced in intervals, lots of energy required
Inter-sexual selection- between (inter) the sexes
Strategy used by each gender to select other gender.
Females invest in offspring, so more choosy when searching (Trivers)
Choices determined by attractive features (height which leads to the runaway process) average
height increases
Intra-sexual selection- within (intra) the sexes
Men use- quantity over quality (plentiful supply of sperm)
Males compete to mate with a female, so his characteristics passed to offspring
Males seek signs of fertility (youthfulness- narrow waist)
Males may benefit from acting aggressive to acquire fertile females
Evaluation:
-Research support- (evidence of women’s choosiness in heterosexual partner 75% males
agreed sexual request from opposite sex student. 0% females) shows females are choosier
than men in selecting sexual partners
-Research support- (support predictions of sexual selection theory. Survey of 10,000 adults in
33 countries. Females want resources. Men want reproductive capacity (youth)). Findings
reflect consistent sex differences in partner preferences
-Social and cultural influences underestimated- (evolutionary theories overlook influences of
social & cultural factors on partner preferences. Rapid changes in partner preference due to
changing social norms) Shows partner preferences are due to evolutionary & cultural influences.
2)Factors affecting attraction- Self disclosure
Self-disclosure- revealing personal info. Romantic partners reveal more as relationship develops
Social penetration theory
Partners penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives with self-disclosure, sign of trust
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure
Layers of onion metaphor- reveal lots of info moving deeper
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
Disclosure must be returned, not just breadth and depth
, Evaluation:
-Research support (predictions about self-disclosure derived from social penetration theory
been supported. Positive correlation between satisfaction and self disclosure) Findings increase
validity of theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to satisfying relationships
-Real world application- (research into self-disclosure helps people improve communication in
relationships. 57% homosexual men & women claimed self disclosure is a skill that can be
learned) Shows psychological insights can help troubled relationships
-Cultural differences- (increasing breadth and depth for all cultures doesn’t always lead to a
better romantic relationship. Less sexual self-disclosure in collectivist cultures (China) than
individualist (USA). Satisfaction levels were the same) Therefore self-disclosure theory is a
limited explanation of romantic relationships- not generalisable
3)Factors affecting attraction- Physical attractiveness
Physical attractiveness- applies to how appealing we find a person’s face
Matching hypothesis- attracted to a person who ‘matches’ us in physical attractiveness
Explaining importance of physical attraction
Symmetric face is attractive as it’s a sign of genetic fitness. Also attracted to neotenous (baby-
face) females shows caring instincts (Shackleford and Larsen). Both naturally selected
The halo effect
We have positive stereotypes of physically attractive people and assume they possess other
positive characteristics (kind, strong, sociable and successful) (Dion et al). Halo effect describes
how one distinguishing feature has disproportionate influence on our judgements of persons’
other attributes (personality)
Research on matching hypothesis
Walster & Walster- we look for partners with similar physical attraction
Created test - ‘The computer dance’
Procedure- Male and female students invited to a dance. Rated for physical attractiveness by
objective observers at start and completed questionnaire about themselves to decide partner for
evening (paired randomly)
Findings- unsupported hypothesis. Most liked partners were most attractive. Berscheid
replicated study, everyone could select their own partner. They tended towards those who
matched them in physical attractiveness
Conclusions- tend to choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
Evaluation:
-Evidence- physical attractiveness is associated with halo effect (attractive people rated as more
politically competent, implications for politics (Palmer and Peterson)) suggests politicians are
judged by looks so may receive fewer voters than they should.
-Research support of role of physical attractiveness (for evolutionary processes) - (Female
features (small nose, large eyes, prominent cheekbones) rated attractive across cultures,
attractive features are consistent - Cunningham) Shows importance of physical attractiveness
makes sense at evolutionary level
-Matching hypothesis not supported by real-world dating into dating - (Online dating choices do
tend to be for more attractive people (Taylor et al.) Undermines validity of matching hypothesis
