-PSYCHOLOGY: Key research- PAPER 3
Relationships
Sexual selection
Trivers pointed out that the reason for female choosiness in a mate is that they invest much more
time, energy, and resources into a baby than males do.
Evaluation points!
+ Buss surveyed 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females put more value on resource-
related characteristics while males valued good looks and chastity more.
+ Clark & Hatfield sent psychology students across a university to individually ask a stranger of
the opposite sex, “Would you like to go to bed with me tonight?” 0% of the females agreed while
75% of the males agreed.
– Bereczki argued that women’s improved role in the workplace may make them less focused on
their mate’s finances due to modern social norms.
Factors of attraction
➢ Self-disclosure
Altman & Taylor argued the breadth and depth of self-disclosure are important factors for
partners to surpass surface-level information and move to deeper thoughts and connections.
Reis & Shaver pointed out that for relationships to truly develop, the level of self-disclosure levels
must be reciprocal.
Evaluation points!
+ Sprecher & Hendrick studied heterosexual couples and found strong correlations between
measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure.
+ Laurenceau used daily diary entries and found that higher levels of self-disclosure were linked to
higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples; the reverse was also true.
+ Hass & Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and
honest self-disclosure was the main way they sustained and deepened their relationship.
– Tang concluded that men and women in the USA self-disclose significantly more about sexual
practices and thoughts than those in China, so this explanation is not entirely generalisable.
➢ Physical attraction
Shackelford & Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive as it
indicates genetic fitness.
McNulty argued that physical attractiveness is important even after the start of the relationship,
including even after marriage.
Walster pointed out that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people so he
suggested our view of our own attractiveness plays a role in choosing a partner, arguing people
choose partners of a similar level of physical attractiveness to their own. This forms the concept of
the “matching hypothesis”.
Evaluation points!
, -PSYCHOLOGY: Key research- PAPER 3
+ Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings
of attractiveness of partners, supporting the matching hypothesis.
+ Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically
knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people, even when participants were aware the
attractive people did not know politics, showing strong support for the “halo effect”.
+ Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and
successful in comparison to unattractive people, again in support of the “halo effect”.
➢ Filter theory
Kerchoff & Davis proposed this is the method used to cut down a field of availables to a field of
desirables, including social demography, attitude similarity, and complementarity.
Evaluation points!
+ Winch found data to show that similarities in personality, interests, and attitudes between
partners are typical of the early stages of a relationship which agrees with this theory and (with
the matching hypothesis theory too).
– Levinger pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings the theory
was based on, proposing this could be due to social changes and the difficulty in defining the
length of a relationship.
– Anderson found out in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in
emotional responses over time, known as “emotional congruence” and arguing cause and effect is
a concern in this theory.
– Davis & Rusbult also question the direction of cause and effect as they discovered attitude
alignments over time in long-term relationships, suggesting the similarity is an effect of their initial
attraction rather than a cause.
Relationship development theories
➢ Social exchange theory
Thibault & Kelly argue we try to minimise losses and maximise gains which leads us to judge our
relationships based on the ratio of rewards to costs and overall profit.
Duck found that our comparison level for alternatives depended on the satisfaction we feel in our
current relationship, so those in happy relationships are less likely to consider alternatives.
Stages of relationship development outlined by the social exchange theory -
● Sampling: Exploring the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting in all our
relationships and observing others.
● Bargaining: Romantic partners begin to exchange various rewards and costs, identifying
what is most profitable.
● Commitment: Sources of rewards and costs become more predictable and the relationship
becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs decrease.
● Institutionalisation: Partners are now settled as relationship norms are firmly established.
Evaluation points!
– Clark & Mills argued the theory failed to distinguish between relationship types. They suggest
exchange relationships, like between colleagues, do involve social exchange but communal
relationships, like romantic ones, do not keep score in this way.
Relationships
Sexual selection
Trivers pointed out that the reason for female choosiness in a mate is that they invest much more
time, energy, and resources into a baby than males do.
Evaluation points!
+ Buss surveyed 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females put more value on resource-
related characteristics while males valued good looks and chastity more.
+ Clark & Hatfield sent psychology students across a university to individually ask a stranger of
the opposite sex, “Would you like to go to bed with me tonight?” 0% of the females agreed while
75% of the males agreed.
– Bereczki argued that women’s improved role in the workplace may make them less focused on
their mate’s finances due to modern social norms.
Factors of attraction
➢ Self-disclosure
Altman & Taylor argued the breadth and depth of self-disclosure are important factors for
partners to surpass surface-level information and move to deeper thoughts and connections.
Reis & Shaver pointed out that for relationships to truly develop, the level of self-disclosure levels
must be reciprocal.
Evaluation points!
+ Sprecher & Hendrick studied heterosexual couples and found strong correlations between
measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure.
+ Laurenceau used daily diary entries and found that higher levels of self-disclosure were linked to
higher levels of intimacy in long-term married couples; the reverse was also true.
+ Hass & Stafford found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and
honest self-disclosure was the main way they sustained and deepened their relationship.
– Tang concluded that men and women in the USA self-disclose significantly more about sexual
practices and thoughts than those in China, so this explanation is not entirely generalisable.
➢ Physical attraction
Shackelford & Larsen found that people with symmetrical faces are rated more attractive as it
indicates genetic fitness.
McNulty argued that physical attractiveness is important even after the start of the relationship,
including even after marriage.
Walster pointed out that we can’t all form relationships with the most attractive people so he
suggested our view of our own attractiveness plays a role in choosing a partner, arguing people
choose partners of a similar level of physical attractiveness to their own. This forms the concept of
the “matching hypothesis”.
Evaluation points!
, -PSYCHOLOGY: Key research- PAPER 3
+ Feingold carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings
of attractiveness of partners, supporting the matching hypothesis.
+ Palmer & Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically
knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people, even when participants were aware the
attractive people did not know politics, showing strong support for the “halo effect”.
+ Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and
successful in comparison to unattractive people, again in support of the “halo effect”.
➢ Filter theory
Kerchoff & Davis proposed this is the method used to cut down a field of availables to a field of
desirables, including social demography, attitude similarity, and complementarity.
Evaluation points!
+ Winch found data to show that similarities in personality, interests, and attitudes between
partners are typical of the early stages of a relationship which agrees with this theory and (with
the matching hypothesis theory too).
– Levinger pointed out that many studies have failed to replicate the original findings the theory
was based on, proposing this could be due to social changes and the difficulty in defining the
length of a relationship.
– Anderson found out in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in
emotional responses over time, known as “emotional congruence” and arguing cause and effect is
a concern in this theory.
– Davis & Rusbult also question the direction of cause and effect as they discovered attitude
alignments over time in long-term relationships, suggesting the similarity is an effect of their initial
attraction rather than a cause.
Relationship development theories
➢ Social exchange theory
Thibault & Kelly argue we try to minimise losses and maximise gains which leads us to judge our
relationships based on the ratio of rewards to costs and overall profit.
Duck found that our comparison level for alternatives depended on the satisfaction we feel in our
current relationship, so those in happy relationships are less likely to consider alternatives.
Stages of relationship development outlined by the social exchange theory -
● Sampling: Exploring the rewards and costs of social exchange by experimenting in all our
relationships and observing others.
● Bargaining: Romantic partners begin to exchange various rewards and costs, identifying
what is most profitable.
● Commitment: Sources of rewards and costs become more predictable and the relationship
becomes more stable as rewards increase and costs decrease.
● Institutionalisation: Partners are now settled as relationship norms are firmly established.
Evaluation points!
– Clark & Mills argued the theory failed to distinguish between relationship types. They suggest
exchange relationships, like between colleagues, do involve social exchange but communal
relationships, like romantic ones, do not keep score in this way.
