Relationships revision notes shortened
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Description:
1. Any genes which are advantageous for survival or promote successful reproduction
are selected
2. Anisogamy = male cells (sperm) plentiful (cheap), female cells (ova) expensive,
(require more energy to produce them)
3. Inter-sexual selection – between sexes
4. Females greater commitment, select genetically-fit partner to provide resources
(female strategy)
5. Intra-sexual – within sexes
6. Males compete, winners pass on their genes (usually winners are bigger and more
aggressive) (male strategy)
Evaluation:
1. + Research support for inter, campus experiment, all females no, 75% men yes,
females are choosier
2. CP: Sexual selection simplistic, male/female strategies similar when seeking long-
term relationships. (Buss and Schmitt).
3. + Research support for intra, 10,000 adults in 33 countries asked about important
attributes, females valued resources, males valued reproductive capacity.
4. – Social and cultural influences underestimated – changing roles in workplace,
women’s partner preferences not resource-oriented, not considered in theory
Factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure
Description:
1. Self-disclosure is important in early relationship, but not too much too soon.
2. Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory, self-disclosure limited at start,
penetration leads to development
3. Depenetration leads to disengaging from relationship
4. Breadth is narrow, too much too soon = off-putting
5. Depth increases, as relationship develops
6. Reis and Shaver: Need for reciprocity for a relationship to develop, increases intimacy
and deepens relationship
Evaluation:
1. + Research support, heterosexual couples – strong correlations between satisfaction
and self-disclosure found, more satisfying taking turns to disclose, supports validity.
2. CP: much self-disclosure research is correlational (the greater the self-disclosure the
more satisfied)– does not tell us if it is valid. Could be the more satisfied the more
self-disclosure or a third variable e.g. the amount of time partners spend together.
, Self-disclosures may not cause satisfaction directly, reducing the validity of social
penetration theory of self-disclosure.
3. + Real world application, 57% homosexual couples said it’s good for relationship
maintenance, can be used to support people having relationship problems.
4. – not satisfying in all cultures, in China level of disclosure lower than US, satisfaction
levels no different
Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
Description:
1. Symmetry seen as attractive – can’t be faked (‘honest signal’)
2. Baby face seen as attractive – triggers protective and caring instincts
3. Halo affect –all attributes positive if attractive
4. Walster and others, computer dance, students did questionnaire, told matched by data
but randomly matched
5. Results: Most liked partners were also the most physically attractive (incorrect
hypothesis)
6. Berscheid and others replicated study, students chose partners themselves, chose
similar physical attractiveness
Evaluation:
1. + Research support for halo effect, attractive seen with more political knowledge,
when told untrue, this still persisted
2. + Research support for evolutionary processes, baby face and symmetry found
attractive in all cultures. Cunningham – large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small
nose, high eyebrows rated highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men.
3. – Real-world research does not support matching hypothesis, Taylor studied online
dating logs showed dating choices, people sought dates with more attractive people,
contradicts
4. CP: Dating choices are ideals Feingold - meta-analysis of 17 studies – found a
significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners.
Online daters seek attractive people – may not get them! Support for matching
hypothesis from established romantic partners.
Factors affecting attraction: Filter theory
Description:
1. Field of availables (potential partners), and field of desirables– Kerkchoff and Davis
2. Field of desirables chosen using three filters
3. 1st filter: Social demography, partners have more meaningful encounters if they share
features, e.g. social class and religion too different = filtered out
4. 2nd filter: Similarity in attitudes, Law of attraction = Byrne found similar attitudes
causes mutual attraction (only for couples less than 18 months), sharing beliefs
5. If partners do not share beliefs and values then relationship fades after only a few
dates
6. 3rd filter: Complementarity, partners complement each other, ‘making a whole’
, Evaluation:
1. + Support for Kerckhoff and Davis, couples did questionnaires, closeness linked to
similarity in first 18 months, complementarity more important later on
2. CP: Levinger pointed out failure to replicate, he put this down to social changes.
Kerckhoff and Davis chose an 18-month cut-off point to distinguish between short-
term and long-term relationships. Assumes partners together longer than 18 months
more committed and had a deeper relationship. Questionable assumptions, theory
undermined by lack of validity.
3. – Complementarity (e.g. submissive + dominant) does not always predict satisfaction,
long-term lesbian partners more satisfied when equally dominant (similarity of needs
more important)
4. – Perceived similarity matters more, relationship develops = perceived similarities,
effect not a cause (not predicted by filter theory)
Theories of romantic relationships: SET
Description:
1. The minimax principle – Thibault and Kelley, minimising costs, maximising rewards,
2. Profitable relationships continue, non-profitable relationships fail
3. Opportunity cost – the recognition that investment in a relationship is at the ‘cost’ of
expending those resources elsewhere
4. Comparison level (CL) the reward level we believe we deserve – determined by
relationship experiences and social norms
5. Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) we consider other relationships if rewards
are higher, and costs are lower
6. Four stages, sampling (exploring costs and rewards), bargaining (negotiating),
commitment (costs go down, rewards go up) Institutionalisation (norms established)
Evaluation:
1. + Research support from questionnaires, homo + heterosexual couples, committed
perceived they had the most rewards and the fewest costs, alternatives unattractive
2. CP: SET ignores equity. Perception of fairness more important than amount of
rewards and costs. Limited explanation.
3. – The direction of cause and effect, dissatisfaction could come first, then we perceive
costs and alternatives, committed partners don’t even notice alternatives
4. – SET concepts are vague, costs hard to define and vary, also unclear what the values
of CL and CLalt need to be to make couples dissatisfied, difficult to test in a valid
way
Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory
Description:
1. Walster and others, propose equity is more important than SET here both partners
level of profit is the same
2. Underbenefitting (dissatisfaction) and overbenefitting (shame) can lead to
dissatisfaction, it’s about the fairness of ratios
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences
Description:
1. Any genes which are advantageous for survival or promote successful reproduction
are selected
2. Anisogamy = male cells (sperm) plentiful (cheap), female cells (ova) expensive,
(require more energy to produce them)
3. Inter-sexual selection – between sexes
4. Females greater commitment, select genetically-fit partner to provide resources
(female strategy)
5. Intra-sexual – within sexes
6. Males compete, winners pass on their genes (usually winners are bigger and more
aggressive) (male strategy)
Evaluation:
1. + Research support for inter, campus experiment, all females no, 75% men yes,
females are choosier
2. CP: Sexual selection simplistic, male/female strategies similar when seeking long-
term relationships. (Buss and Schmitt).
3. + Research support for intra, 10,000 adults in 33 countries asked about important
attributes, females valued resources, males valued reproductive capacity.
4. – Social and cultural influences underestimated – changing roles in workplace,
women’s partner preferences not resource-oriented, not considered in theory
Factors affecting attraction: Self-disclosure
Description:
1. Self-disclosure is important in early relationship, but not too much too soon.
2. Altman and Taylor’s social penetration theory, self-disclosure limited at start,
penetration leads to development
3. Depenetration leads to disengaging from relationship
4. Breadth is narrow, too much too soon = off-putting
5. Depth increases, as relationship develops
6. Reis and Shaver: Need for reciprocity for a relationship to develop, increases intimacy
and deepens relationship
Evaluation:
1. + Research support, heterosexual couples – strong correlations between satisfaction
and self-disclosure found, more satisfying taking turns to disclose, supports validity.
2. CP: much self-disclosure research is correlational (the greater the self-disclosure the
more satisfied)– does not tell us if it is valid. Could be the more satisfied the more
self-disclosure or a third variable e.g. the amount of time partners spend together.
, Self-disclosures may not cause satisfaction directly, reducing the validity of social
penetration theory of self-disclosure.
3. + Real world application, 57% homosexual couples said it’s good for relationship
maintenance, can be used to support people having relationship problems.
4. – not satisfying in all cultures, in China level of disclosure lower than US, satisfaction
levels no different
Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
Description:
1. Symmetry seen as attractive – can’t be faked (‘honest signal’)
2. Baby face seen as attractive – triggers protective and caring instincts
3. Halo affect –all attributes positive if attractive
4. Walster and others, computer dance, students did questionnaire, told matched by data
but randomly matched
5. Results: Most liked partners were also the most physically attractive (incorrect
hypothesis)
6. Berscheid and others replicated study, students chose partners themselves, chose
similar physical attractiveness
Evaluation:
1. + Research support for halo effect, attractive seen with more political knowledge,
when told untrue, this still persisted
2. + Research support for evolutionary processes, baby face and symmetry found
attractive in all cultures. Cunningham – large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small
nose, high eyebrows rated highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men.
3. – Real-world research does not support matching hypothesis, Taylor studied online
dating logs showed dating choices, people sought dates with more attractive people,
contradicts
4. CP: Dating choices are ideals Feingold - meta-analysis of 17 studies – found a
significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners.
Online daters seek attractive people – may not get them! Support for matching
hypothesis from established romantic partners.
Factors affecting attraction: Filter theory
Description:
1. Field of availables (potential partners), and field of desirables– Kerkchoff and Davis
2. Field of desirables chosen using three filters
3. 1st filter: Social demography, partners have more meaningful encounters if they share
features, e.g. social class and religion too different = filtered out
4. 2nd filter: Similarity in attitudes, Law of attraction = Byrne found similar attitudes
causes mutual attraction (only for couples less than 18 months), sharing beliefs
5. If partners do not share beliefs and values then relationship fades after only a few
dates
6. 3rd filter: Complementarity, partners complement each other, ‘making a whole’
, Evaluation:
1. + Support for Kerckhoff and Davis, couples did questionnaires, closeness linked to
similarity in first 18 months, complementarity more important later on
2. CP: Levinger pointed out failure to replicate, he put this down to social changes.
Kerckhoff and Davis chose an 18-month cut-off point to distinguish between short-
term and long-term relationships. Assumes partners together longer than 18 months
more committed and had a deeper relationship. Questionable assumptions, theory
undermined by lack of validity.
3. – Complementarity (e.g. submissive + dominant) does not always predict satisfaction,
long-term lesbian partners more satisfied when equally dominant (similarity of needs
more important)
4. – Perceived similarity matters more, relationship develops = perceived similarities,
effect not a cause (not predicted by filter theory)
Theories of romantic relationships: SET
Description:
1. The minimax principle – Thibault and Kelley, minimising costs, maximising rewards,
2. Profitable relationships continue, non-profitable relationships fail
3. Opportunity cost – the recognition that investment in a relationship is at the ‘cost’ of
expending those resources elsewhere
4. Comparison level (CL) the reward level we believe we deserve – determined by
relationship experiences and social norms
5. Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) we consider other relationships if rewards
are higher, and costs are lower
6. Four stages, sampling (exploring costs and rewards), bargaining (negotiating),
commitment (costs go down, rewards go up) Institutionalisation (norms established)
Evaluation:
1. + Research support from questionnaires, homo + heterosexual couples, committed
perceived they had the most rewards and the fewest costs, alternatives unattractive
2. CP: SET ignores equity. Perception of fairness more important than amount of
rewards and costs. Limited explanation.
3. – The direction of cause and effect, dissatisfaction could come first, then we perceive
costs and alternatives, committed partners don’t even notice alternatives
4. – SET concepts are vague, costs hard to define and vary, also unclear what the values
of CL and CLalt need to be to make couples dissatisfied, difficult to test in a valid
way
Theories of romantic relationships: Equity theory
Description:
1. Walster and others, propose equity is more important than SET here both partners
level of profit is the same
2. Underbenefitting (dissatisfaction) and overbenefitting (shame) can lead to
dissatisfaction, it’s about the fairness of ratios
