AQA A-Level Psychology 16 Mark Model Essays
Relationships
1. Outline and evaluate the evolutionary explanation for partner preference (16 marks)
Evolutionary explanations for partner preference suggest that we select our partners based on the
evolutionary drive to reproduce. The explanation proposes two types of sexual selection: intra-
sexual and inter-sexual. These are based on the principle of anisogamy, which describes the
difference between the gametes. Whereas males produce plentiful sperm throughout their lifetime,
female eggs are a much rarer resource and represent a greater investment of energy for the woman.
Thus, males tend to favour intra-sexual selection, in which they compete amongst other males for
the right to mate with as many females as possible. This increases the likelihood of their genetic
material being passed on to a high number of offspring. Males therefore look for signs of youth and
fertility in their partners and so value characteristics such as a waist-hip ratio of 0.7 or below. On the
other hand, women favour inter-sexual selection, in which they make a deliberate and considered
choice of a single male to partner with. Women need to ensure that their partner is capable of
providing for themselves and their offspring, and willing to remain loyal. This is because women
invest a greater amount of time and energy in bearing and raising children. As a result, women look
for resource-related characteristics in male partners, such as good financial prospects and
intelligence. Due to the uncertain nature of paternity, men tend to be more upset by sexual infidelity
in a female partner, whereas women are more concerned about a male partner’s emotional
infidelity, as this could lead to a withdrawal of resources. Different types of sexual selection have
given rise to dimorphism - different characteristics among the sexes. For example, men tend to be
taller and more muscular, because this would give them an advantage when fighting other men for
mating rights. Height is not selected for to the same extent in women. This links with Ronald Fisher’s
‘sexy sons’ hypothesis, in which he proposes that the attractive qualities in a man that caused a
woman to select him as a partner are then passed down to their children.
One strength of the evolutionary explanation for partner preference is that it has been supported by
the research of Clarke and Hatfield, which saw male and female psychology students approach other
students on campus and ask them to sleep with them that night. While none of the female students
approached agreed, 75% of male students did. This confirms the evolutionary explanation’s
prediction that women are more ‘picky’ because the potential consequences of a sexual relationship
are greater for them. However, Clarke and Hatfield’s research has been criticised because it only
offers insight into partner selection in the immediate and short term. Other researchers have argued
that when looking to establish long-term relationships both men and women look for a partner who
is caring, intelligent and loyal.
One limitation of the evolutionary explanation for partner preference is that it lacks relevance in
modern society. Tamas Bereckzei et al. pointed out that an increasing number of women have their
own careers and means of income, which means that they do not need to seek out the resources
offered to them by a partner. Therefore, modern women may be looking for different things in a
partner than evolutionary theory predicts. The same limitations can be applied to gay and lesbian
couples, who do not form partnerships on the basis of reproduction. Because the evolutionary
explanation is heteronormative, it fails to account for all types of relationships in modern society.
However, the evolutionary explanation is supported by the research of David Buss et al. (1989) who
distributed questionnaires to over 10,000 people. These were designed to elicit information
pertaining to their selection of a partner. The researchers found that men valued physical
attractiveness much more than women, and women placed greater importance on a partner’s
, financial situation. This supports the prediction of evolutionary theory that men and women have
distinct differences in their partner preferences.
2. Outline and evaluate the Social Exchange Theory of relationships (16 marks)
The Social Exchange Theory (SET) of relationships was developed by Thibault and Kelley and suggests
that we approach relationships as we would an economic exchange. In order for a relationship to be
satisfying, the rewards must outweigh the costs. As long as we are profiting from a relationship, the
model predicts that we will stay in it. Partners are therefore always looking to maximise their
rewards - emotional support, financial contributions, sex - and minimise their costs - stress,
arguments, time commitments. Thibault and Kelley suggest that we form a perception of the
appropriate level of profit based on our comparison level, which is formed by what we observe of
relationships in the media, of other people we know and the previous experiences of relationships
we’ve had. The comparison level for alternatives refers to other potential relationships we could
have if we weren’t in our current one and whether these would be more profitable. Alternatively, a
person might consider whether being single would be more profitable. SET also proposes four stages
of a relationship. The sampling phase, in which we explore costs and rewards that might become
associated with a relationship. The bargaining phase, in which we negotiate to improve our level of
profit. The commitment stage, in which costs and rewards become more predictable, and finally the
institutionalisation stage, in which profit is largely settled, but might increase slightly with time.
One strength of SET is that it is supported by the research of Lawrence Kurdek, who found that the
SET variables predicted satisfaction in a questionnaire sample. The most committed partners
perceived the fewest costs, the highest rewards and viewed alternatives as generally unattractive.
This was the first study to show that the SET variables are independent of each other and
individually have an effect.
However, one limitation of SET is that its central assumptions may be seen as inappropriate. Clark
and Mills argued that we cannot reduce relationships to a mere profit level, as this undermines the
key principles of trust. Many regard it as quite a cynical theory because it associates the concept of
benevolent, unselfish love with self-seeking business practices. Instead, Walster proposed that
equity theory is better fitted to the reality of most relationships, as costs - in reality - very rarely split
equally. Instead, a partner’s perception that their relationship is equitable (fair) is more important.
Rusbult believed SET to be a limited explanation because it could not explain why many dissatisfied
couples remain in a relationship. He proposed that investment was a crucial factor that SET had
overlooked. Therefore, SET may be wrong to assume relationships are economic in nature, as in
reality partners do not ‘keep score’.
Finally, Michael Argyle disputes SET theory because it arguably presents the symptoms of
relationship breakdown as the cause. SET states that when the costs of a relationship begin to
outweigh the rewards, we will leave that partner. However, Argyle believes that people are not
constantly monitoring the profit level of their relationships, as this would be exhausting. Instead,
they only begin to do so once they sense the relationship beginning to break down. Thus, SET’s
assumptions are only appropriate after a partner has become dissatisfied - they do not cause the
dissatisfaction. This makes SET less useful because its principles cannot be applied in the way they
are intended
3. Outline and evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of romantic relationships (8 marks)
Rusbult’s investment model is an extension of social exchange theory because it proposes that
commitment to a relationship is based on satisfaction and comparison with alternatives (including
Relationships
1. Outline and evaluate the evolutionary explanation for partner preference (16 marks)
Evolutionary explanations for partner preference suggest that we select our partners based on the
evolutionary drive to reproduce. The explanation proposes two types of sexual selection: intra-
sexual and inter-sexual. These are based on the principle of anisogamy, which describes the
difference between the gametes. Whereas males produce plentiful sperm throughout their lifetime,
female eggs are a much rarer resource and represent a greater investment of energy for the woman.
Thus, males tend to favour intra-sexual selection, in which they compete amongst other males for
the right to mate with as many females as possible. This increases the likelihood of their genetic
material being passed on to a high number of offspring. Males therefore look for signs of youth and
fertility in their partners and so value characteristics such as a waist-hip ratio of 0.7 or below. On the
other hand, women favour inter-sexual selection, in which they make a deliberate and considered
choice of a single male to partner with. Women need to ensure that their partner is capable of
providing for themselves and their offspring, and willing to remain loyal. This is because women
invest a greater amount of time and energy in bearing and raising children. As a result, women look
for resource-related characteristics in male partners, such as good financial prospects and
intelligence. Due to the uncertain nature of paternity, men tend to be more upset by sexual infidelity
in a female partner, whereas women are more concerned about a male partner’s emotional
infidelity, as this could lead to a withdrawal of resources. Different types of sexual selection have
given rise to dimorphism - different characteristics among the sexes. For example, men tend to be
taller and more muscular, because this would give them an advantage when fighting other men for
mating rights. Height is not selected for to the same extent in women. This links with Ronald Fisher’s
‘sexy sons’ hypothesis, in which he proposes that the attractive qualities in a man that caused a
woman to select him as a partner are then passed down to their children.
One strength of the evolutionary explanation for partner preference is that it has been supported by
the research of Clarke and Hatfield, which saw male and female psychology students approach other
students on campus and ask them to sleep with them that night. While none of the female students
approached agreed, 75% of male students did. This confirms the evolutionary explanation’s
prediction that women are more ‘picky’ because the potential consequences of a sexual relationship
are greater for them. However, Clarke and Hatfield’s research has been criticised because it only
offers insight into partner selection in the immediate and short term. Other researchers have argued
that when looking to establish long-term relationships both men and women look for a partner who
is caring, intelligent and loyal.
One limitation of the evolutionary explanation for partner preference is that it lacks relevance in
modern society. Tamas Bereckzei et al. pointed out that an increasing number of women have their
own careers and means of income, which means that they do not need to seek out the resources
offered to them by a partner. Therefore, modern women may be looking for different things in a
partner than evolutionary theory predicts. The same limitations can be applied to gay and lesbian
couples, who do not form partnerships on the basis of reproduction. Because the evolutionary
explanation is heteronormative, it fails to account for all types of relationships in modern society.
However, the evolutionary explanation is supported by the research of David Buss et al. (1989) who
distributed questionnaires to over 10,000 people. These were designed to elicit information
pertaining to their selection of a partner. The researchers found that men valued physical
attractiveness much more than women, and women placed greater importance on a partner’s
, financial situation. This supports the prediction of evolutionary theory that men and women have
distinct differences in their partner preferences.
2. Outline and evaluate the Social Exchange Theory of relationships (16 marks)
The Social Exchange Theory (SET) of relationships was developed by Thibault and Kelley and suggests
that we approach relationships as we would an economic exchange. In order for a relationship to be
satisfying, the rewards must outweigh the costs. As long as we are profiting from a relationship, the
model predicts that we will stay in it. Partners are therefore always looking to maximise their
rewards - emotional support, financial contributions, sex - and minimise their costs - stress,
arguments, time commitments. Thibault and Kelley suggest that we form a perception of the
appropriate level of profit based on our comparison level, which is formed by what we observe of
relationships in the media, of other people we know and the previous experiences of relationships
we’ve had. The comparison level for alternatives refers to other potential relationships we could
have if we weren’t in our current one and whether these would be more profitable. Alternatively, a
person might consider whether being single would be more profitable. SET also proposes four stages
of a relationship. The sampling phase, in which we explore costs and rewards that might become
associated with a relationship. The bargaining phase, in which we negotiate to improve our level of
profit. The commitment stage, in which costs and rewards become more predictable, and finally the
institutionalisation stage, in which profit is largely settled, but might increase slightly with time.
One strength of SET is that it is supported by the research of Lawrence Kurdek, who found that the
SET variables predicted satisfaction in a questionnaire sample. The most committed partners
perceived the fewest costs, the highest rewards and viewed alternatives as generally unattractive.
This was the first study to show that the SET variables are independent of each other and
individually have an effect.
However, one limitation of SET is that its central assumptions may be seen as inappropriate. Clark
and Mills argued that we cannot reduce relationships to a mere profit level, as this undermines the
key principles of trust. Many regard it as quite a cynical theory because it associates the concept of
benevolent, unselfish love with self-seeking business practices. Instead, Walster proposed that
equity theory is better fitted to the reality of most relationships, as costs - in reality - very rarely split
equally. Instead, a partner’s perception that their relationship is equitable (fair) is more important.
Rusbult believed SET to be a limited explanation because it could not explain why many dissatisfied
couples remain in a relationship. He proposed that investment was a crucial factor that SET had
overlooked. Therefore, SET may be wrong to assume relationships are economic in nature, as in
reality partners do not ‘keep score’.
Finally, Michael Argyle disputes SET theory because it arguably presents the symptoms of
relationship breakdown as the cause. SET states that when the costs of a relationship begin to
outweigh the rewards, we will leave that partner. However, Argyle believes that people are not
constantly monitoring the profit level of their relationships, as this would be exhausting. Instead,
they only begin to do so once they sense the relationship beginning to break down. Thus, SET’s
assumptions are only appropriate after a partner has become dissatisfied - they do not cause the
dissatisfaction. This makes SET less useful because its principles cannot be applied in the way they
are intended
3. Outline and evaluate Rusbult’s investment model of romantic relationships (8 marks)
Rusbult’s investment model is an extension of social exchange theory because it proposes that
commitment to a relationship is based on satisfaction and comparison with alternatives (including
