Relationships
Contents
Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences......................................................................................2
Factors affecting attraction..........................................................................................................................4
Self-disclosure..........................................................................................................................................4
Physical attractiveness.............................................................................................................................5
Filter theory.............................................................................................................................................7
Theories of romantic relationships..............................................................................................................8
Social exchange theory (SET)...................................................................................................................8
Equity theory.........................................................................................................................................10
Rusbult’s investment model..................................................................................................................11
Duck’s phase model...............................................................................................................................13
Virtual relationships in social media..........................................................................................................14
Self-disclosure........................................................................................................................................14
Reduced cues theory.........................................................................................................................14
Hyperpersonal model........................................................................................................................15
Absence of gating..................................................................................................................................16
Parasocial relationships.............................................................................................................................16
Levels of parasocial relationships..........................................................................................................16
The absorption addiction model............................................................................................................17
Attachment theory explanation.............................................................................................................18
1
,Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences
Sexual selection = An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that
increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations
of offspring.
I.e., Characteristics that aid successful reproduction in generation 1 are likely to be preferred in
generation 1’s offspring.
Darwin (1871)’s concept
e.g., some physical characteristics, such as a male peacock’s tail, are a sign of genetic fitness;
females who select males with such characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring,
therefore the preference for such a tail is perpetuated in future generations.
e.g., some characteristics, such as aggressiveness, are adaptive because they provide an
advantage for a male over other competitors for reproductive rights. If genetically determined,
aggressive characteristics are hence passed on to offspring.
Human reproductive behaviour = Any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and
thereby increase the survival chances of our genes. It includes the evolutionary mechanisms underlying
our partner preferences, such as mate choice and mate competition.
I.e., behaviours that increase the chance of reproduction.
The basis of human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy: the differences between male and
female sex cells (gametes).
Male gametes are small, mobile and created continuously in vast numbers, whereas female
gametes are relatively large, static, and limited. Therefore, fertile females are a much rarer
‘resource’.
Anisogamy is important in partner preference as it gives rise to two types of sexual selection.
Types of sexual selection:
Inter-sexual selection
o The strategies that females use to select males, or vice versa.
o I.e., between sexes
o Preferred strategy of female due to rarity of ova compared to sperm.
Trivers (1972) argues that females are more selective as the consequences of
making a wrong partner choice are more serious – more investment of time,
commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of offspring.
Female preference therefore determines which features are passed on,
e.g., if height is considered attractive, in each generation females select
the tallest males and that characteristic thus gradually becomes
exaggerated (a runaway process).
Fisher (1930) developed a ‘sexy sons hypothesis’ - the genes we see today are
those that enhanced reproductive success.
A female who mates with a male who has a certain characteristic will
then have sons with said ‘sexy’ trait, making her sons more likely to be
selected.
2
, Intra-sexual selection
o The strategies between males/females to be the one that is selected.
o I.e., within each sex
o Preferred strategy in male due to plentiful supply of sperm. (ew)
The winner of competition between males reproduces and therefore the
characteristics contributing to his victory may be passed on.
o Gives rise to dimorphism – males and females end up looking very different because of
intra-sexual selection.
e.g., physical size of males matters as they compete with each other, whereas
no competition for females so no evolutionary drive towards larger females.
e.g., youthfulness in females matters as males have a preference for more fertile
women.
o Controversial behavioural consequences
e.g., characteristics that allow a male to outcompete rivals may include
intelligence, deceitfulness and aggression.
Evaluation
Findings that reflect consistent sex differences in partner preferences and support the
predictions from sexual selection theory.
o Buss (1989) surveyed over 10k adults in 33 countries, asking questions relating to a
variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner
preference.
o He found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics than
males did, e.g., financial prospects, ambition. Males, on the other hand, valued physical
attractiveness and youth.
Evidence that supports the specific role of female choosiness in heterosexual partner
preference.
o Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students to approach other
students on a uni campus, calling them attractive and asking if they would sleep with
them that night. 75% of males agreed, and no female student agreed.
The argument that one strategy is adaptive for males and the other for females is simplistic.
o Strategies appear to differ according to the length of the relationship.
o Buss and Schmitt (2016)’s sexual strategies theory argues that both males and females
adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships; both sexes are
very choosy and search for positive characteristics such as loyalty and kindness.
o This is a more complex and nuanced view of how evolutionary pressures influence
partner preferences as it takes account of context of reproductive behaviour.
3
Contents
Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences......................................................................................2
Factors affecting attraction..........................................................................................................................4
Self-disclosure..........................................................................................................................................4
Physical attractiveness.............................................................................................................................5
Filter theory.............................................................................................................................................7
Theories of romantic relationships..............................................................................................................8
Social exchange theory (SET)...................................................................................................................8
Equity theory.........................................................................................................................................10
Rusbult’s investment model..................................................................................................................11
Duck’s phase model...............................................................................................................................13
Virtual relationships in social media..........................................................................................................14
Self-disclosure........................................................................................................................................14
Reduced cues theory.........................................................................................................................14
Hyperpersonal model........................................................................................................................15
Absence of gating..................................................................................................................................16
Parasocial relationships.............................................................................................................................16
Levels of parasocial relationships..........................................................................................................16
The absorption addiction model............................................................................................................17
Attachment theory explanation.............................................................................................................18
1
,Evolutionary explanation for partner preferences
Sexual selection = An evolutionary explanation of partner preference. Attributes or behaviours that
increase reproductive success are passed on and may become exaggerated over succeeding generations
of offspring.
I.e., Characteristics that aid successful reproduction in generation 1 are likely to be preferred in
generation 1’s offspring.
Darwin (1871)’s concept
e.g., some physical characteristics, such as a male peacock’s tail, are a sign of genetic fitness;
females who select males with such characteristics are more likely to produce robust offspring,
therefore the preference for such a tail is perpetuated in future generations.
e.g., some characteristics, such as aggressiveness, are adaptive because they provide an
advantage for a male over other competitors for reproductive rights. If genetically determined,
aggressive characteristics are hence passed on to offspring.
Human reproductive behaviour = Any behaviours which relate to opportunities to reproduce and
thereby increase the survival chances of our genes. It includes the evolutionary mechanisms underlying
our partner preferences, such as mate choice and mate competition.
I.e., behaviours that increase the chance of reproduction.
The basis of human reproductive behaviour is anisogamy: the differences between male and
female sex cells (gametes).
Male gametes are small, mobile and created continuously in vast numbers, whereas female
gametes are relatively large, static, and limited. Therefore, fertile females are a much rarer
‘resource’.
Anisogamy is important in partner preference as it gives rise to two types of sexual selection.
Types of sexual selection:
Inter-sexual selection
o The strategies that females use to select males, or vice versa.
o I.e., between sexes
o Preferred strategy of female due to rarity of ova compared to sperm.
Trivers (1972) argues that females are more selective as the consequences of
making a wrong partner choice are more serious – more investment of time,
commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of offspring.
Female preference therefore determines which features are passed on,
e.g., if height is considered attractive, in each generation females select
the tallest males and that characteristic thus gradually becomes
exaggerated (a runaway process).
Fisher (1930) developed a ‘sexy sons hypothesis’ - the genes we see today are
those that enhanced reproductive success.
A female who mates with a male who has a certain characteristic will
then have sons with said ‘sexy’ trait, making her sons more likely to be
selected.
2
, Intra-sexual selection
o The strategies between males/females to be the one that is selected.
o I.e., within each sex
o Preferred strategy in male due to plentiful supply of sperm. (ew)
The winner of competition between males reproduces and therefore the
characteristics contributing to his victory may be passed on.
o Gives rise to dimorphism – males and females end up looking very different because of
intra-sexual selection.
e.g., physical size of males matters as they compete with each other, whereas
no competition for females so no evolutionary drive towards larger females.
e.g., youthfulness in females matters as males have a preference for more fertile
women.
o Controversial behavioural consequences
e.g., characteristics that allow a male to outcompete rivals may include
intelligence, deceitfulness and aggression.
Evaluation
Findings that reflect consistent sex differences in partner preferences and support the
predictions from sexual selection theory.
o Buss (1989) surveyed over 10k adults in 33 countries, asking questions relating to a
variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner
preference.
o He found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics than
males did, e.g., financial prospects, ambition. Males, on the other hand, valued physical
attractiveness and youth.
Evidence that supports the specific role of female choosiness in heterosexual partner
preference.
o Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students to approach other
students on a uni campus, calling them attractive and asking if they would sleep with
them that night. 75% of males agreed, and no female student agreed.
The argument that one strategy is adaptive for males and the other for females is simplistic.
o Strategies appear to differ according to the length of the relationship.
o Buss and Schmitt (2016)’s sexual strategies theory argues that both males and females
adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships; both sexes are
very choosy and search for positive characteristics such as loyalty and kindness.
o This is a more complex and nuanced view of how evolutionary pressures influence
partner preferences as it takes account of context of reproductive behaviour.
3
