Rela%onships
• The evolu%onary explana%ons for partner preferences, including the rela%onship between sexual selec%on and
human reproduc%ve behaviour.
• Factors affec%ng a?rac%on in roman%c rela%onships: self-disclosure; physical a?rac%veness, including the
matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in aDtudes and complementarity.
• Theories of roman%c rela%onships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of
commitment, sa%sfac%on, comparison with alterna%ves and investment. Duck’s phase model of rela%onship
breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
• Virtual rela%onships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual rela%onships; effects of absence of ga%ng on the
nature of virtual rela%onships.
• Parasocial rela%onships: levels of parasocial rela%onships, the absorp%on addic%on model and the a?achment
theory explana%on.
The evolu)onary explana)ons for partner preferences, including the rela)onship between sexual selec)on
and human reproduc)ve behaviour.
Anisogamy – differences between male and female sex cells
Males produce millions of small, energe)cally inexpensive sperm, whereas females produce rela)vely few
large, metabolically expensive eggs à creates different reproduc)ve pressures
Males benefit from a strategy of ma)ng widely, whereas females must be more selec)ve, choosing a
partner who can offer high-quality genes or resource investment. à underpins partner preferences
Natural selec)on theory: genes that hold reproduc)ve advantage will increase in the gene pool.
à Those who possess the strongest traits will survive to sexual maturity, and those who have desirable
characterises have more mates and so are more likely to pass their genes on.
Inter-sexual selec)on – ‘female’s choice’, ‘quality over quan)ty’
Females typically prefer males who display signs of resource acquisi)on, physical health, or gene)c fitness,
because these quali)es enhance offspring survival.
Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis builds on this idea, sugges)ng that females choose aJrac)ve males because
this increases the likelihood that their sons will also be aJrac)ve and therefore have greater reproduc)ve
success
There is a biological marketplace, genes that confer aJrac)ve quali)es are more saleable.
Intra-sexual selec)on – compe))on within males for access to mates
Males benefit from traits such as aggression, physical strength or risk-taking behaviours
à gives them an advantage over male rivals, fight off compe)tors for access to mates
- Behaviours e.g. mate guarding, forming alliances, engaging in elaborate courtship rituals, sneak
copula)on strategies
, Physical dimorphism – difference in body size between male & females as sexual selec)on favours
physically strong and aggressive males
Evidence support Less relevant in more modern society where
Buss (1989) - surveyed over 10,000 adults in 37 expecta)ons of males and females are less
countries stereotyped, eg women are more autonomous so
Found that females universally place more less dependent on men
importance on resource-related characteris)cs in a
partner, such as ambi)on, high intelligence and Kasser and Sharma – analysis of 37 cultures
good financial prospects. Females mostly valued a mate with resources in
Males, however, preferred younger mates and put socie)es where women’s access to educa)on and
more value on signs of a female’s ability to workplace was severely limited
reproduce, such as aJrac)veness and modesty.
Women in modern Western socie)es may no longer
Clark and HaZield (1989) - female selec)veness be looking for a man to provide them with
Male and female students were approached by a resources à other quali)es e.g. being thoughZul
stranger who offered either a date, a visit to their become more important
apartment, or sex.
75% of males agreed to casual sex compared to à Evolu)onary explana)ons are limited as ignores
none of the females. other important factors, e.g. social and culture
Males were increasingly willing as the request norms
became more in)mate, while females were
increasingly unwilling.
Singh – waist-to-hip ra)o
0.7 waist-to-hip ra)o found aJrac)ve (larger hips
and slim waist)
à interpreted as a sign that the woman is fer)le
but not currently pregnant
Sexual strategies theory – partner selec)on Evolu)onary reduc)onism
strategies differ according to what each partner Individual differences in partner’s choice play a
wants from different type of rela)onship (long-term huge part; not always as straighZorward as gene)c
or short-term) inheritance and striving for reproduc)ve success
Mate preferences change across the menstrual Less readily applicable to non-heterosexual
cycle rela)onships
- Females preferred masculine features Does not explain homosexual rela)onships where
during fer)le period à advantageous for the choice of partner does not lead to reproduc)ve
offspring success and so no evolu)onary advantage.
- But higher preference for slightly feminised
features as a long-term mate
• The evolu%onary explana%ons for partner preferences, including the rela%onship between sexual selec%on and
human reproduc%ve behaviour.
• Factors affec%ng a?rac%on in roman%c rela%onships: self-disclosure; physical a?rac%veness, including the
matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in aDtudes and complementarity.
• Theories of roman%c rela%onships: social exchange theory, equity theory and Rusbult’s investment model of
commitment, sa%sfac%on, comparison with alterna%ves and investment. Duck’s phase model of rela%onship
breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
• Virtual rela%onships in social media: self-disclosure in virtual rela%onships; effects of absence of ga%ng on the
nature of virtual rela%onships.
• Parasocial rela%onships: levels of parasocial rela%onships, the absorp%on addic%on model and the a?achment
theory explana%on.
The evolu)onary explana)ons for partner preferences, including the rela)onship between sexual selec)on
and human reproduc)ve behaviour.
Anisogamy – differences between male and female sex cells
Males produce millions of small, energe)cally inexpensive sperm, whereas females produce rela)vely few
large, metabolically expensive eggs à creates different reproduc)ve pressures
Males benefit from a strategy of ma)ng widely, whereas females must be more selec)ve, choosing a
partner who can offer high-quality genes or resource investment. à underpins partner preferences
Natural selec)on theory: genes that hold reproduc)ve advantage will increase in the gene pool.
à Those who possess the strongest traits will survive to sexual maturity, and those who have desirable
characterises have more mates and so are more likely to pass their genes on.
Inter-sexual selec)on – ‘female’s choice’, ‘quality over quan)ty’
Females typically prefer males who display signs of resource acquisi)on, physical health, or gene)c fitness,
because these quali)es enhance offspring survival.
Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis builds on this idea, sugges)ng that females choose aJrac)ve males because
this increases the likelihood that their sons will also be aJrac)ve and therefore have greater reproduc)ve
success
There is a biological marketplace, genes that confer aJrac)ve quali)es are more saleable.
Intra-sexual selec)on – compe))on within males for access to mates
Males benefit from traits such as aggression, physical strength or risk-taking behaviours
à gives them an advantage over male rivals, fight off compe)tors for access to mates
- Behaviours e.g. mate guarding, forming alliances, engaging in elaborate courtship rituals, sneak
copula)on strategies
, Physical dimorphism – difference in body size between male & females as sexual selec)on favours
physically strong and aggressive males
Evidence support Less relevant in more modern society where
Buss (1989) - surveyed over 10,000 adults in 37 expecta)ons of males and females are less
countries stereotyped, eg women are more autonomous so
Found that females universally place more less dependent on men
importance on resource-related characteris)cs in a
partner, such as ambi)on, high intelligence and Kasser and Sharma – analysis of 37 cultures
good financial prospects. Females mostly valued a mate with resources in
Males, however, preferred younger mates and put socie)es where women’s access to educa)on and
more value on signs of a female’s ability to workplace was severely limited
reproduce, such as aJrac)veness and modesty.
Women in modern Western socie)es may no longer
Clark and HaZield (1989) - female selec)veness be looking for a man to provide them with
Male and female students were approached by a resources à other quali)es e.g. being thoughZul
stranger who offered either a date, a visit to their become more important
apartment, or sex.
75% of males agreed to casual sex compared to à Evolu)onary explana)ons are limited as ignores
none of the females. other important factors, e.g. social and culture
Males were increasingly willing as the request norms
became more in)mate, while females were
increasingly unwilling.
Singh – waist-to-hip ra)o
0.7 waist-to-hip ra)o found aJrac)ve (larger hips
and slim waist)
à interpreted as a sign that the woman is fer)le
but not currently pregnant
Sexual strategies theory – partner selec)on Evolu)onary reduc)onism
strategies differ according to what each partner Individual differences in partner’s choice play a
wants from different type of rela)onship (long-term huge part; not always as straighZorward as gene)c
or short-term) inheritance and striving for reproduc)ve success
Mate preferences change across the menstrual Less readily applicable to non-heterosexual
cycle rela)onships
- Females preferred masculine features Does not explain homosexual rela)onships where
during fer)le period à advantageous for the choice of partner does not lead to reproduc)ve
offspring success and so no evolu)onary advantage.
- But higher preference for slightly feminised
features as a long-term mate
