Inter-Sexual Selection :
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Studies support the idea of inter-sexual selection 1. Buss’ work is also limited due to the impact of
- For example, Buss in 1989 conducted a social desirability bias
study of over 10,000 people from 37 - Despite the size and scale of Buss’
cultures and looked at what people research being impressive, his use of
desired/looked for in marriage partners. questionnaires could lead to social
- He found that females valued desirability bias with ppts answering in
resource-based characteristics when socially desirable ways rather than
choosing a male (such as their job, social honestly.
status, ambitions etc) whilst men focused - ALSO, 77% of the ppts were from Western
on physical attractiveness and youth in Industrialised nations THEREFORE Buss
females. may have been measuring the effects of
- THEREFORE, Buss supports the idea of culture rather than an evolutionary
inter-sexual selection as it suggests that determined behaviour.
there are in fact certain qualities and 2. Evolutionary explanations of relationships suffer
characteristics which make a mate more from evolutionary reductionism
desirable. - This is because they argue that strategies
2. Singh supports the evolutionary theory which for choosing a mate are the result of
states that males will show a preference for the genetic inheritance and a striving for
female body shape which signals fertility reproductive success.
- Sign studied this theory in terms of WHR - HOWEVER, this is not always as
- He found that what matters in male straightforward in real life, where
preference is to do with the WHR rather individual differences in partner’s choice
than the female body size. play a huge part.
- This combination of wider hips & narrower - For example, evolutionary explanations fail
waist is attractive because it’s an ‘honest to account for homosexual relationships
signal’ (hard to fake) that a woman is fertile where choice of partner clearly does not
but not currently pregnant. result in reproductive success and so
doesn't have an evolutionary advantage.
Intra-Sexual Selection :
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Support for intra-sexual selection 1. The evolutionary approach is deterministic.
- Short (1979) stated that evidence for - This suggests that we have little free-will in
intra-sexual selection can be seen in our choices in a partner, however everyday
sperm counts and sperm competition. experiences show us that we do have
- He argues that human males have evolved control over our preferences.
to produce a large amount of sperm
- Evolutionary explanations for mating are
during ejaculation so that it increases the
likelihood of fertilisation and reproductive socially sensitive as they promote
success. traditional views regarding what are
- THEREFORE this supports intra-sexual ‘natural’ male and female roles and
selection as it demonstrates same gender behaviours.
competition. - Similarly it is gender bias – In today's
2. Research support for intra-sexuual selection society, women are more career orientated
- Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted a now therefore will not look for resourceful
study where male and female psychology partners as much. THEREFORE
students were asked to approach fellow evolutionary theory does not apply to
students of Florida State University (of the modern society.
opposite sex) and ask them for one of - Finally, evolutionary theory makes little
three things; to go on a date, to go back attempt to explain other types of
to their apartment, or to go to bed with relationships, e.g. gay and lesbian
them. relationships, and cultural variations in
- About 50% of both men and women relationships which exist across the world,
agreed to the date, but whilst 69% of men e.g. arranged marriages.
agreed to visit the apartment and 75%
agreed to go to bed with them, only 6% of
women agreed to go to the apartment and
0% accepted the more intimate offer.
- THEREFORE this suggests that women are
more selective when choosing who to mate
with compared to males who will more
likely mate with anyone.
, Physical Attractiveness :
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Research supports the Halo Effect 1. Individual differences
- Palmer & Peterson 2012 found that - Towhey et al found that some people are
physically attractive people were rated as less sensitive to physical attractiveness..
more politically knowledgeable & - He gave participants photos of strangers
competent than unattractive people. and some biographical information about
- The halo effect was so powerful that it them; participants were asked to rate how
persisted even when the ppts knew that much they liked the people on
the ‘knowledgeable’ indvs had no photographs
particular expertise. - He found that physical attractiveness was
- This therefore has severe implications for more important for participants who
the political process (are voters choosing displayed sexist attitudes (measured by a
MP’s due to physical attractiveness or specially designed questionnaire).
actual suitability) - This suggests that, depending on the
- The existence of the halo effect has been individual, physical appearance may or
applied to numerous aspects of daily life may not be a significant factor in
THEREFORE confirming that physical attractiveness, while the matching
attractiveness is a significant factor in the hypothesis suggests it is always the main
initial formation of relationships. one.
2. Physical attractiveness is universal 2. Research contradicts matching hypotheses
- Cunningham et al found white, hispanic - Taylor et al 2011 studied activity logs on a
and asian males, despite being from popular dating site.
different cultures, rated females with - This was a real-life test of matching
prominent cheekbones, small noses and hypotheses because it measured actual
large eyes as highly attractive. date choices (rather than preferences).
- This universality of findings suggests - The people on the dating site sought out
using attractiveness as a decisive factor in dates with people who were more
choosing a partner might be a genetically physically attractive than them & it seems
reproduced mechanism. that they didn’t consider their own levels
- THEREFORE this suggests that this of attractiveness as the matching
behaviour is mainly due to biological hypothesis suggests ppl do.
influences and not the environment so is - THEREFORE, this study is contradictory to
significant in human life. the matching hypotheses theory.
Self disclosure :
Strengths Limitations
1. Self-disclosure is supported by research. 1. There are Cultural differences
- Research into self-disclosure can help people - Social Penetration Theory was
who want to improve communication in their developed based on research in a
relationships. Romantic partners probably Western, individualist culture, so it may
not apply to collectivist cultures..
use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully - For example Tang et al, 2013 reviewed
from time to time to increase intimacy and research regarding sexual
strengthen the bond. self-disclosure.
- This is backed up by, Hass and statford who - He Concluded that men/women in the
found that 57% of gay men and women USA disclose significantly more than
considered open self-disclosure as a main men/women in China.
way to maintain close relationships. - Further evidence for cultural
differences was found by Nakanshi
- This demonstrates the importance of (1986), it was found that Japanese
self-disclosure in romantic relationships, just women prefer a lower level of personal
as the theory has predicted. conversations than Japanese men do.
2. Boom and bust phenomenon supports self This is the opposite of what is found in
disclosure western societies where women tend to
- Cooper and Sportolari suggested that prefer more disclosure than men.
2. Limiting factors
establishing trust in a partner before - The social penetration theory ignores
revealing more intimate information about many other factors that can influence
ourselves is supported by the so-called relationships, such as cultural practices
‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. and personality.
- They found that anonymous online - Furthermore, by reducing relationship
interactions gave web-users a sense of satisfaction to a single factor, Social
Penetration Theory ignores many other
security and made them disclose personal aspects of romantic attraction, such as
information much earlier in relationships physical attractiveness, similarity of
than they would face-to-face, making attitudes. This suggests that research
relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’). into romantic relationships could
- However, because the necessary trust benefit from the use of an idiographic
foundation had not been established, the approach that studies couples’ unique
experiences in detail, rather than trying
intensity of the relationship was impossible to establish a set of laws that apply to
to sustain, leading to break-up (‘bust’). all couples.
- This shows that breadth of relationships
needs to be established first, before
proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, just
as Social Penetration Theory suggests.
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Studies support the idea of inter-sexual selection 1. Buss’ work is also limited due to the impact of
- For example, Buss in 1989 conducted a social desirability bias
study of over 10,000 people from 37 - Despite the size and scale of Buss’
cultures and looked at what people research being impressive, his use of
desired/looked for in marriage partners. questionnaires could lead to social
- He found that females valued desirability bias with ppts answering in
resource-based characteristics when socially desirable ways rather than
choosing a male (such as their job, social honestly.
status, ambitions etc) whilst men focused - ALSO, 77% of the ppts were from Western
on physical attractiveness and youth in Industrialised nations THEREFORE Buss
females. may have been measuring the effects of
- THEREFORE, Buss supports the idea of culture rather than an evolutionary
inter-sexual selection as it suggests that determined behaviour.
there are in fact certain qualities and 2. Evolutionary explanations of relationships suffer
characteristics which make a mate more from evolutionary reductionism
desirable. - This is because they argue that strategies
2. Singh supports the evolutionary theory which for choosing a mate are the result of
states that males will show a preference for the genetic inheritance and a striving for
female body shape which signals fertility reproductive success.
- Sign studied this theory in terms of WHR - HOWEVER, this is not always as
- He found that what matters in male straightforward in real life, where
preference is to do with the WHR rather individual differences in partner’s choice
than the female body size. play a huge part.
- This combination of wider hips & narrower - For example, evolutionary explanations fail
waist is attractive because it’s an ‘honest to account for homosexual relationships
signal’ (hard to fake) that a woman is fertile where choice of partner clearly does not
but not currently pregnant. result in reproductive success and so
doesn't have an evolutionary advantage.
Intra-Sexual Selection :
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Support for intra-sexual selection 1. The evolutionary approach is deterministic.
- Short (1979) stated that evidence for - This suggests that we have little free-will in
intra-sexual selection can be seen in our choices in a partner, however everyday
sperm counts and sperm competition. experiences show us that we do have
- He argues that human males have evolved control over our preferences.
to produce a large amount of sperm
- Evolutionary explanations for mating are
during ejaculation so that it increases the
likelihood of fertilisation and reproductive socially sensitive as they promote
success. traditional views regarding what are
- THEREFORE this supports intra-sexual ‘natural’ male and female roles and
selection as it demonstrates same gender behaviours.
competition. - Similarly it is gender bias – In today's
2. Research support for intra-sexuual selection society, women are more career orientated
- Clark and Hatfield (1989) conducted a now therefore will not look for resourceful
study where male and female psychology partners as much. THEREFORE
students were asked to approach fellow evolutionary theory does not apply to
students of Florida State University (of the modern society.
opposite sex) and ask them for one of - Finally, evolutionary theory makes little
three things; to go on a date, to go back attempt to explain other types of
to their apartment, or to go to bed with relationships, e.g. gay and lesbian
them. relationships, and cultural variations in
- About 50% of both men and women relationships which exist across the world,
agreed to the date, but whilst 69% of men e.g. arranged marriages.
agreed to visit the apartment and 75%
agreed to go to bed with them, only 6% of
women agreed to go to the apartment and
0% accepted the more intimate offer.
- THEREFORE this suggests that women are
more selective when choosing who to mate
with compared to males who will more
likely mate with anyone.
, Physical Attractiveness :
Strengths : Limitations :
1. Research supports the Halo Effect 1. Individual differences
- Palmer & Peterson 2012 found that - Towhey et al found that some people are
physically attractive people were rated as less sensitive to physical attractiveness..
more politically knowledgeable & - He gave participants photos of strangers
competent than unattractive people. and some biographical information about
- The halo effect was so powerful that it them; participants were asked to rate how
persisted even when the ppts knew that much they liked the people on
the ‘knowledgeable’ indvs had no photographs
particular expertise. - He found that physical attractiveness was
- This therefore has severe implications for more important for participants who
the political process (are voters choosing displayed sexist attitudes (measured by a
MP’s due to physical attractiveness or specially designed questionnaire).
actual suitability) - This suggests that, depending on the
- The existence of the halo effect has been individual, physical appearance may or
applied to numerous aspects of daily life may not be a significant factor in
THEREFORE confirming that physical attractiveness, while the matching
attractiveness is a significant factor in the hypothesis suggests it is always the main
initial formation of relationships. one.
2. Physical attractiveness is universal 2. Research contradicts matching hypotheses
- Cunningham et al found white, hispanic - Taylor et al 2011 studied activity logs on a
and asian males, despite being from popular dating site.
different cultures, rated females with - This was a real-life test of matching
prominent cheekbones, small noses and hypotheses because it measured actual
large eyes as highly attractive. date choices (rather than preferences).
- This universality of findings suggests - The people on the dating site sought out
using attractiveness as a decisive factor in dates with people who were more
choosing a partner might be a genetically physically attractive than them & it seems
reproduced mechanism. that they didn’t consider their own levels
- THEREFORE this suggests that this of attractiveness as the matching
behaviour is mainly due to biological hypothesis suggests ppl do.
influences and not the environment so is - THEREFORE, this study is contradictory to
significant in human life. the matching hypotheses theory.
Self disclosure :
Strengths Limitations
1. Self-disclosure is supported by research. 1. There are Cultural differences
- Research into self-disclosure can help people - Social Penetration Theory was
who want to improve communication in their developed based on research in a
relationships. Romantic partners probably Western, individualist culture, so it may
not apply to collectivist cultures..
use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully - For example Tang et al, 2013 reviewed
from time to time to increase intimacy and research regarding sexual
strengthen the bond. self-disclosure.
- This is backed up by, Hass and statford who - He Concluded that men/women in the
found that 57% of gay men and women USA disclose significantly more than
considered open self-disclosure as a main men/women in China.
way to maintain close relationships. - Further evidence for cultural
differences was found by Nakanshi
- This demonstrates the importance of (1986), it was found that Japanese
self-disclosure in romantic relationships, just women prefer a lower level of personal
as the theory has predicted. conversations than Japanese men do.
2. Boom and bust phenomenon supports self This is the opposite of what is found in
disclosure western societies where women tend to
- Cooper and Sportolari suggested that prefer more disclosure than men.
2. Limiting factors
establishing trust in a partner before - The social penetration theory ignores
revealing more intimate information about many other factors that can influence
ourselves is supported by the so-called relationships, such as cultural practices
‘boom and bust’ phenomenon. and personality.
- They found that anonymous online - Furthermore, by reducing relationship
interactions gave web-users a sense of satisfaction to a single factor, Social
Penetration Theory ignores many other
security and made them disclose personal aspects of romantic attraction, such as
information much earlier in relationships physical attractiveness, similarity of
than they would face-to-face, making attitudes. This suggests that research
relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’). into romantic relationships could
- However, because the necessary trust benefit from the use of an idiographic
foundation had not been established, the approach that studies couples’ unique
experiences in detail, rather than trying
intensity of the relationship was impossible to establish a set of laws that apply to
to sustain, leading to break-up (‘bust’). all couples.
- This shows that breadth of relationships
needs to be established first, before
proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, just
as Social Penetration Theory suggests.
