AQA Psychology Revision – Topic Summary - University campus, offered date, go
back apartment or sex (0% women,
Paper 3 (option topic) - Relationships
75% men)
Evolutionary Explanations Partner
Evaluation
Preferences:
- Reductionist, deterministic
Partner preferences - adaptations that
- Contraceptives sexual freedom
evolved in relation to attraction and
women
reproductive selection
- Women are less financially
- 1871 Darwin propose sexual dependent
selection: seek partners more - Heterosexual bias
successfully reproduce raise healthy - Questionnaires and surveys
offspring
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-
Anisogamy – differences between sex cells disclosure
- Male sex cells: require little energy to - Sharing information about each other
produce, produced in abundance - Part of Social penetration theory
- Female sex cells: take time and developed by Altman and Taylor
energy to be created, limited 1973
puberty-menopause - Breadth and depth (level of intimacy
- Males quantity so tend compete with and personal significance of
each other for partners = intra- information)
sexual selection - Onion ideology: outer = public self
- Female quality, costs reproduction (superficial, low depth and breadth)
higher, more selective = inter-sexual inner = core self (authentic, high
selection – female likely to target depth breadth)
desirable traits - Reis and Shaver 1988: needs
reciprocated to foster feelings of
Runaway process – desirable traits females closeness and intimacy
seek passed down to male children,
preferences for traits passed to female Research: Sprecher and Hendrick 2004
children
- Heterosexual relationships strong
Research: Buss 1989 correlations between measures of
self-disclosure and satisfaction
- Investigate gender differences
preferences Research: Laurenceau et al 2005
- Surveyed 10,000 adults, 33 countries
- Analysed married couples diary
- Females valued characteristics
entries, found self disclosure and
related to resources, males
perception of self disclosure
reproductive ability
associated with greater intimacy
Research: Singh
Evaluation
- Males attracted hip to waist ratio 0.7
- Application couples therapy
Research: Waynforth and Dunbar 1995 - Haas and Stafford 1998 57%
homosexual men women believe
- Lonely hearts US advertisements open self-disclosure key
- Women tend promote physical nurturing/strengthening relationships
attractiveness and signals of youth - Cultural bias: Tang et al 2013
- Men tend promote resources like literature review US (individualist)
money and more interested in disclosed more sexual nature China
female psychical (collectivist) – despite this both
Research: Clark and Hatfield 1989 cultures high levels of satisfaction
- Much research heterosexual,
correlation
, Factors affecting attraction: Physical - Wheeler and Kim 1997 judged US
attractiveness and Korean students – judged
physically attractive people more
- Certain features universal:
friendly, mature etc
Shackleford and Larsen 1997 people
- Individual differences: Towhey pps
attracted symmetrical faces, rated
like?, photo description,
more genuine and agreeable
questionnaire MACHO scale (asses
- Evolutionary perspective symmetry
sexism) more sexist = physical
indicator of genetic fitness
- Cultural: Cunningham et al 1995
- Large eyes, small nose, small chins =
neotenous desired white, Hispanic,
neotenous features
Asian men
The Halo effect - Not apply long term, appearance
changes
- Dion et al 1972 found more
attractive people more often Factors affecting attraction: Filter
describes strong, kind, successful Theory
and sociable
- 1962 Kerckhoff and Davies propose 3
- Find them more attractive because
filters
we assume they have these qualities
- Sociodemographic: location,
- Physical attractiveness
education, class, religion – affect how
disproportionately influences our
likely to encounter future partners
perception
forming a field of availables
The Matching Hypothesis
Homogony – relationships between people
- Walster et al 1966 suggests that of similar sociodemographic backgrounds
evaluation of our own attractiveness
- Similarity in attitudes: narrow field of
may influence our selections of a
availables to field of desirables – part
partner
important first 18 months as
- We ideally want the most attractive
facilitated through process of self
partner but also want to avoid
disclosure
rejection so we settle for people the
- Complemenatarity: when couples
same level as us
fulfil each other’s needs, Kerckhoff
Research: Palmer and Peterson 2012 – Halo and Davies found more important in
effect long term – gives feeling of forming
whole together
- People rated attractive more likely
seen as competent, knowledgeable Research: Winch 1998 – filter theory
about politics
- Initial stages partners exhibit more
- So impactful that people maintained
similarities in personality/interests
these assumptions even after finding
but long term complementarity
out they had no political expertise
greater significance
Research: Feingold 1988 – The Matching
Research: Gruber-Baldini et al 1995 –
hypothesis
sociodemographic = Couples similar
- Meta analysis of 17 studies, found age/education more stay
romantic partners had similar self
Research: Anderson et al 2003 – opposition
ratings of attractiveness
- Longitudinal, attraction may cause
Research: Taylor et al 2011 – opposition
similarities – couples who cohabited
- Analysed online dating activity, became more similar (emotional
found more likely arranged meetings convergence)
that were more physically attractive
Research: Davis and Rusbult 2001 =
than themselves
Proposed an attitude alignment effect
Evaluation
Evaluation
back apartment or sex (0% women,
Paper 3 (option topic) - Relationships
75% men)
Evolutionary Explanations Partner
Evaluation
Preferences:
- Reductionist, deterministic
Partner preferences - adaptations that
- Contraceptives sexual freedom
evolved in relation to attraction and
women
reproductive selection
- Women are less financially
- 1871 Darwin propose sexual dependent
selection: seek partners more - Heterosexual bias
successfully reproduce raise healthy - Questionnaires and surveys
offspring
Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-
Anisogamy – differences between sex cells disclosure
- Male sex cells: require little energy to - Sharing information about each other
produce, produced in abundance - Part of Social penetration theory
- Female sex cells: take time and developed by Altman and Taylor
energy to be created, limited 1973
puberty-menopause - Breadth and depth (level of intimacy
- Males quantity so tend compete with and personal significance of
each other for partners = intra- information)
sexual selection - Onion ideology: outer = public self
- Female quality, costs reproduction (superficial, low depth and breadth)
higher, more selective = inter-sexual inner = core self (authentic, high
selection – female likely to target depth breadth)
desirable traits - Reis and Shaver 1988: needs
reciprocated to foster feelings of
Runaway process – desirable traits females closeness and intimacy
seek passed down to male children,
preferences for traits passed to female Research: Sprecher and Hendrick 2004
children
- Heterosexual relationships strong
Research: Buss 1989 correlations between measures of
self-disclosure and satisfaction
- Investigate gender differences
preferences Research: Laurenceau et al 2005
- Surveyed 10,000 adults, 33 countries
- Analysed married couples diary
- Females valued characteristics
entries, found self disclosure and
related to resources, males
perception of self disclosure
reproductive ability
associated with greater intimacy
Research: Singh
Evaluation
- Males attracted hip to waist ratio 0.7
- Application couples therapy
Research: Waynforth and Dunbar 1995 - Haas and Stafford 1998 57%
homosexual men women believe
- Lonely hearts US advertisements open self-disclosure key
- Women tend promote physical nurturing/strengthening relationships
attractiveness and signals of youth - Cultural bias: Tang et al 2013
- Men tend promote resources like literature review US (individualist)
money and more interested in disclosed more sexual nature China
female psychical (collectivist) – despite this both
Research: Clark and Hatfield 1989 cultures high levels of satisfaction
- Much research heterosexual,
correlation
, Factors affecting attraction: Physical - Wheeler and Kim 1997 judged US
attractiveness and Korean students – judged
physically attractive people more
- Certain features universal:
friendly, mature etc
Shackleford and Larsen 1997 people
- Individual differences: Towhey pps
attracted symmetrical faces, rated
like?, photo description,
more genuine and agreeable
questionnaire MACHO scale (asses
- Evolutionary perspective symmetry
sexism) more sexist = physical
indicator of genetic fitness
- Cultural: Cunningham et al 1995
- Large eyes, small nose, small chins =
neotenous desired white, Hispanic,
neotenous features
Asian men
The Halo effect - Not apply long term, appearance
changes
- Dion et al 1972 found more
attractive people more often Factors affecting attraction: Filter
describes strong, kind, successful Theory
and sociable
- 1962 Kerckhoff and Davies propose 3
- Find them more attractive because
filters
we assume they have these qualities
- Sociodemographic: location,
- Physical attractiveness
education, class, religion – affect how
disproportionately influences our
likely to encounter future partners
perception
forming a field of availables
The Matching Hypothesis
Homogony – relationships between people
- Walster et al 1966 suggests that of similar sociodemographic backgrounds
evaluation of our own attractiveness
- Similarity in attitudes: narrow field of
may influence our selections of a
availables to field of desirables – part
partner
important first 18 months as
- We ideally want the most attractive
facilitated through process of self
partner but also want to avoid
disclosure
rejection so we settle for people the
- Complemenatarity: when couples
same level as us
fulfil each other’s needs, Kerckhoff
Research: Palmer and Peterson 2012 – Halo and Davies found more important in
effect long term – gives feeling of forming
whole together
- People rated attractive more likely
seen as competent, knowledgeable Research: Winch 1998 – filter theory
about politics
- Initial stages partners exhibit more
- So impactful that people maintained
similarities in personality/interests
these assumptions even after finding
but long term complementarity
out they had no political expertise
greater significance
Research: Feingold 1988 – The Matching
Research: Gruber-Baldini et al 1995 –
hypothesis
sociodemographic = Couples similar
- Meta analysis of 17 studies, found age/education more stay
romantic partners had similar self
Research: Anderson et al 2003 – opposition
ratings of attractiveness
- Longitudinal, attraction may cause
Research: Taylor et al 2011 – opposition
similarities – couples who cohabited
- Analysed online dating activity, became more similar (emotional
found more likely arranged meetings convergence)
that were more physically attractive
Research: Davis and Rusbult 2001 =
than themselves
Proposed an attitude alignment effect
Evaluation
Evaluation
