Relationships
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Human reproductive behaviour: any behaviours which relate to the Parental investment: parental sacrifice which increases child’s chance of survival.
opportunity to reproduce and increase chance of survival
- Males have low parental investment – have low paternity confidence (knowing the child is
- Anisogamy: male sperm are in large quantity and take little theirs) and can reproduce a vast number of offspring
effort, so men reproduce widely to increase reproductive - Females have high parental investment- certain the child is theirs. Picky in order to increase
success. Female eggs are limited in quantity and take lots of chance of survival for her and the offspring
energy, so women are pickier - AO3
- (-) culture bias- some cultures don’t believe in women’s rights and have to marry wealth for
- Inter-sexual selection: women choose quality of a man, who’s survival so it’s not evolutionary
able to provide resources and financial support. They’re pickier (-) Temporal validity- women can talk about sex more now and sex doesn’t mean
are they’re making a greater investment. Men prioritise physical reproduction.
appearance as youth and attraction =reproductive value (+) Clark and Hatfield went around university campus and asked, ‘would you like to go to bed
- AO3 with me tonight’. 75% males said yes, and 0% females said yes
(+) Buss studied 37 cultures and found men valued (-) Clark and Hatfield low population validity
attractiveness more, females valued financial prospects and
women wanted older men but men wanted younger women.
Summary-
(-) Buss was self-report
(-) etic approach – assume all cultures have same values Intersexual selection: women want wealthy man, men want fertile
(+) face validity eg. ‘trophy wife’ woman
- Intra-sexual selection: strategies/ competition to be selected. Intra-sexual relationship: males larger and aggressive to attract
Dimorphism (males and females look different). Behavioural females
consequences- males need to be deceitful, intelligent and Males have low PI as they can produce lots and don’t know its
aggressive. theirs
- AO3
(+) Buss found men are more likely to make threats of violence Females have high PI as they know it’s theirs
and women use verbal aggression to decrease competition’s
attractiveness.
(-) doesn’t explain homosexual relationships
(-) deterministic- free will / culture
, RELATIONSHIPS
Factors affecting attraction
Self-disclosure: sharing personal information has three elements. Physical attractiveness:
1. Social penetration theory: gradual process of revealing inner self via reciprocal exchange of The halo effect- preconceived ideas about the traits that attractive
information. One partner reveals something, signalling for other partner to reveal equally people must have (usually good traits). One distinguishing feature has
sensitive information. They ‘penetrate’ into each other’s lives to increase understanding disproportionate influence on our judgement of a person’s other
2. Breadth and depth of self-disclosure : breadth = disclosing low risk information at the start of attributes (ao3 supporting studies in study guide)
the relationship as revealing too much, too soon as it reduces attractiveness. Depth= reveal
The matching hypothesis- individuals assess their own ‘value’ and
more ‘high risk’ information to discuss more important things
select the best candidate who’s attractiveness matches their own to
3. Reciprocity of self-disclosure: reciprocal element of self-disclosure- expectation that response to
maximise chances of successful outcome. By choosing someone with
‘high risk’ is empathetic and understanding as increased intimacy leads to deeper relationship.
higher value, they risk losing the opportunity to pass on genes
- AO3:
(-) historical bias- online dating profile shares info about a person without reciprocity - AO3
(+) Sprecher and Hendrick did a longitudinal study and found hat men and women who self- - (+) Murstein found that after photographing partners in
disclosed and believed their partner also did, where more satisfied and committed to their established relationships, and having the partners and
relationship independent judges rank them on attractiveness, real life
(-) Sprecher and Hendrick- correlational couples had similar ratings
(+) practical applications- improve communication in relationships - (-) Murstein is correlational
- (-) culture bias e.g. Arranged marriage
Filter theory: series of factors reduce range of possible partners
Filter theory AO3:
- Social Demography: wide range of factors and social (rather than
individual) characteristics e.g., Geographical location, social class, level (+) practical applications – happier in
of education, ethnic group, religion as more in common = more relationships improves work force and better
attraction quality of life
(-) overly simplistic – attraction based on
- Similarity in attitudes: individual psychological characteristics and physical attraction not proximity – where is the
agreement on attitudes and basic values. Partners with vey different line drawn between friendship and
attitudes are not suitable and are ‘filtered out’ from possible partners. relationships?
- Complementarity of needs: ability for romantic partners to meet each (-) historical bias- online dating
other’s needs e.g. To be caring and to be cared for (similar to opposites
(-) culture bias e.g. Arranged marriage
attract)
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Human reproductive behaviour: any behaviours which relate to the Parental investment: parental sacrifice which increases child’s chance of survival.
opportunity to reproduce and increase chance of survival
- Males have low parental investment – have low paternity confidence (knowing the child is
- Anisogamy: male sperm are in large quantity and take little theirs) and can reproduce a vast number of offspring
effort, so men reproduce widely to increase reproductive - Females have high parental investment- certain the child is theirs. Picky in order to increase
success. Female eggs are limited in quantity and take lots of chance of survival for her and the offspring
energy, so women are pickier - AO3
- (-) culture bias- some cultures don’t believe in women’s rights and have to marry wealth for
- Inter-sexual selection: women choose quality of a man, who’s survival so it’s not evolutionary
able to provide resources and financial support. They’re pickier (-) Temporal validity- women can talk about sex more now and sex doesn’t mean
are they’re making a greater investment. Men prioritise physical reproduction.
appearance as youth and attraction =reproductive value (+) Clark and Hatfield went around university campus and asked, ‘would you like to go to bed
- AO3 with me tonight’. 75% males said yes, and 0% females said yes
(+) Buss studied 37 cultures and found men valued (-) Clark and Hatfield low population validity
attractiveness more, females valued financial prospects and
women wanted older men but men wanted younger women.
Summary-
(-) Buss was self-report
(-) etic approach – assume all cultures have same values Intersexual selection: women want wealthy man, men want fertile
(+) face validity eg. ‘trophy wife’ woman
- Intra-sexual selection: strategies/ competition to be selected. Intra-sexual relationship: males larger and aggressive to attract
Dimorphism (males and females look different). Behavioural females
consequences- males need to be deceitful, intelligent and Males have low PI as they can produce lots and don’t know its
aggressive. theirs
- AO3
(+) Buss found men are more likely to make threats of violence Females have high PI as they know it’s theirs
and women use verbal aggression to decrease competition’s
attractiveness.
(-) doesn’t explain homosexual relationships
(-) deterministic- free will / culture
, RELATIONSHIPS
Factors affecting attraction
Self-disclosure: sharing personal information has three elements. Physical attractiveness:
1. Social penetration theory: gradual process of revealing inner self via reciprocal exchange of The halo effect- preconceived ideas about the traits that attractive
information. One partner reveals something, signalling for other partner to reveal equally people must have (usually good traits). One distinguishing feature has
sensitive information. They ‘penetrate’ into each other’s lives to increase understanding disproportionate influence on our judgement of a person’s other
2. Breadth and depth of self-disclosure : breadth = disclosing low risk information at the start of attributes (ao3 supporting studies in study guide)
the relationship as revealing too much, too soon as it reduces attractiveness. Depth= reveal
The matching hypothesis- individuals assess their own ‘value’ and
more ‘high risk’ information to discuss more important things
select the best candidate who’s attractiveness matches their own to
3. Reciprocity of self-disclosure: reciprocal element of self-disclosure- expectation that response to
maximise chances of successful outcome. By choosing someone with
‘high risk’ is empathetic and understanding as increased intimacy leads to deeper relationship.
higher value, they risk losing the opportunity to pass on genes
- AO3:
(-) historical bias- online dating profile shares info about a person without reciprocity - AO3
(+) Sprecher and Hendrick did a longitudinal study and found hat men and women who self- - (+) Murstein found that after photographing partners in
disclosed and believed their partner also did, where more satisfied and committed to their established relationships, and having the partners and
relationship independent judges rank them on attractiveness, real life
(-) Sprecher and Hendrick- correlational couples had similar ratings
(+) practical applications- improve communication in relationships - (-) Murstein is correlational
- (-) culture bias e.g. Arranged marriage
Filter theory: series of factors reduce range of possible partners
Filter theory AO3:
- Social Demography: wide range of factors and social (rather than
individual) characteristics e.g., Geographical location, social class, level (+) practical applications – happier in
of education, ethnic group, religion as more in common = more relationships improves work force and better
attraction quality of life
(-) overly simplistic – attraction based on
- Similarity in attitudes: individual psychological characteristics and physical attraction not proximity – where is the
agreement on attitudes and basic values. Partners with vey different line drawn between friendship and
attitudes are not suitable and are ‘filtered out’ from possible partners. relationships?
- Complementarity of needs: ability for romantic partners to meet each (-) historical bias- online dating
other’s needs e.g. To be caring and to be cared for (similar to opposites
(-) culture bias e.g. Arranged marriage
attract)
