RELATIONSHIPS
SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR,
Anisogamy Differences between male and female sex cells which give rise to different mating strategies,
dictates that males optimum strategy is to mate with as many women as possible
Inter-sexual selection Preferred strategy for female - ‘quality over quantity’ means females are choosier as bad
choices have more critical consequences for her
Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis (runaway process) - female preference for genetically ‘fit’ male
ensures desirable characteristics are inherited and passed on
Trivers emphasises as the female makes a bigger time investment
Intra-sexual selection Preferred strategy for the male - males compete to mate with as many females as possible
Males are sensitive to indicators of youth and fertility in females, suits their optimum mating
strategy
Dimorphism Psychological and physical differences between males and females
Waist-hip ratio Singh found the ratio is about 0.7. This combination is attractive as it is an honest signal
that a woman is fertile but not currently pregnant.
EVALUATION
Buss’ survey of over 10,000 adults from 33 countries supports that preference is related to anisogamy. He found female
respondents placed greater value on resource related characteristics whilst males valued reproductive capacity - good looks
and chastity. These findings support predictions that partner preference is derived from sexual selection theory.
Furthermore they can be applied across cultures demonstrating fundamental preferences which are not primarily
dependent on cultural influences.
Clark and Hatfield showed female choosiness in hetrosexual relationships, No females agreed to go to bed with the
students whilst 75% of males did, immediately. This supports evolutionary theory because it suggests females are choosier
and males have evolved a different strategy to achieve reproductive success.
Partner preferences have been influenced by the changing social norms of sexual behaviour. These develop much faster
than evolutionary timescales imply and instead have resulted from cultural factors, e.g. availability of contraception.
Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men so Bereczkei et al argues this has
changed female mate preferences - no longer resource oriented. Mate preferences are therefore the outcome of a
combination of evolutionary and cultural influences, this theory is limited as it fails to recognise both.
SELF-DISCLOSURE
Self-disclosure Reveals our feelings, attitudes, beliefs, memories to our partner so they understand us better
, Social penetration theory Altman and Taylor: self-disclosure reveals one’s ‘inner self’; and displays trust in the other
person, so romantic partners ‘penetrate’ into each others lives more deeply
Timing Disclosures at the start of a relationship are many, but superficial
As a relationship develops more layers are removed, revealing more ‘high risk’ information
Reciprocity of Self-disclosure encourages the other partner to reveal information about themselves,
self-disclosure deepening the relationship between them
EVALUATION
Predictions about self-disclosure, derived from social penetration theory, have been supported by research. Specher and
Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure.
Laurenceau et al found disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure was linked to higher intimacy in long term couples.
This evidence increases confidence in the validity of the theory that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships.
Research into self-disclosure can have real-world implications. This supports people who want to improve communication
in their relationships. Deliberate self-disclosure can be used to increase intimacy and strengthen the romantic bond.
Hass and Stafford found 57% gay men and women said self-disclosure was how they maintained and deepened their
relationships. This demonstrates the value of psychological insights.
The idea that depth and breadth of self-disclosure will lead to a more satisfying and intimate relationship is not true for
all cultures. Tang et al concluded that men and women in the USA disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings
than people in China. This shows it is a limited explanation of romantic relationships as it isn’t necessarily generalisable
to other cultures.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Physical attractiveness Symmetrical faces are considered more attractive, sign of genetic fitness
Neotenous (baby) features in females (small nose, big eyes)rated attractive, possibly trigger
a caring instinct
McNulty et al. important at start of relationship and also of continuing importance
Halo effect Attractive people assumed to have other desirable characteristics - honesty and friendliness
Matching hypothesis (Walster et al.) We tend to choose partners who are of a similar level of physical
attractiveness to ourselves rather than go for the most attractive option
EVALUATION
Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent
than unattractive people. The halo effect persisted even when the participants were informed they had no particular
SEXUAL SELECTION AND HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR,
Anisogamy Differences between male and female sex cells which give rise to different mating strategies,
dictates that males optimum strategy is to mate with as many women as possible
Inter-sexual selection Preferred strategy for female - ‘quality over quantity’ means females are choosier as bad
choices have more critical consequences for her
Fisher’s sexy sons hypothesis (runaway process) - female preference for genetically ‘fit’ male
ensures desirable characteristics are inherited and passed on
Trivers emphasises as the female makes a bigger time investment
Intra-sexual selection Preferred strategy for the male - males compete to mate with as many females as possible
Males are sensitive to indicators of youth and fertility in females, suits their optimum mating
strategy
Dimorphism Psychological and physical differences between males and females
Waist-hip ratio Singh found the ratio is about 0.7. This combination is attractive as it is an honest signal
that a woman is fertile but not currently pregnant.
EVALUATION
Buss’ survey of over 10,000 adults from 33 countries supports that preference is related to anisogamy. He found female
respondents placed greater value on resource related characteristics whilst males valued reproductive capacity - good looks
and chastity. These findings support predictions that partner preference is derived from sexual selection theory.
Furthermore they can be applied across cultures demonstrating fundamental preferences which are not primarily
dependent on cultural influences.
Clark and Hatfield showed female choosiness in hetrosexual relationships, No females agreed to go to bed with the
students whilst 75% of males did, immediately. This supports evolutionary theory because it suggests females are choosier
and males have evolved a different strategy to achieve reproductive success.
Partner preferences have been influenced by the changing social norms of sexual behaviour. These develop much faster
than evolutionary timescales imply and instead have resulted from cultural factors, e.g. availability of contraception.
Women’s greater role in the workplace means they are no longer dependent on men so Bereczkei et al argues this has
changed female mate preferences - no longer resource oriented. Mate preferences are therefore the outcome of a
combination of evolutionary and cultural influences, this theory is limited as it fails to recognise both.
SELF-DISCLOSURE
Self-disclosure Reveals our feelings, attitudes, beliefs, memories to our partner so they understand us better
, Social penetration theory Altman and Taylor: self-disclosure reveals one’s ‘inner self’; and displays trust in the other
person, so romantic partners ‘penetrate’ into each others lives more deeply
Timing Disclosures at the start of a relationship are many, but superficial
As a relationship develops more layers are removed, revealing more ‘high risk’ information
Reciprocity of Self-disclosure encourages the other partner to reveal information about themselves,
self-disclosure deepening the relationship between them
EVALUATION
Predictions about self-disclosure, derived from social penetration theory, have been supported by research. Specher and
Hendrick studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure.
Laurenceau et al found disclosure and the perception of self-disclosure was linked to higher intimacy in long term couples.
This evidence increases confidence in the validity of the theory that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships.
Research into self-disclosure can have real-world implications. This supports people who want to improve communication
in their relationships. Deliberate self-disclosure can be used to increase intimacy and strengthen the romantic bond.
Hass and Stafford found 57% gay men and women said self-disclosure was how they maintained and deepened their
relationships. This demonstrates the value of psychological insights.
The idea that depth and breadth of self-disclosure will lead to a more satisfying and intimate relationship is not true for
all cultures. Tang et al concluded that men and women in the USA disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings
than people in China. This shows it is a limited explanation of romantic relationships as it isn’t necessarily generalisable
to other cultures.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Physical attractiveness Symmetrical faces are considered more attractive, sign of genetic fitness
Neotenous (baby) features in females (small nose, big eyes)rated attractive, possibly trigger
a caring instinct
McNulty et al. important at start of relationship and also of continuing importance
Halo effect Attractive people assumed to have other desirable characteristics - honesty and friendliness
Matching hypothesis (Walster et al.) We tend to choose partners who are of a similar level of physical
attractiveness to ourselves rather than go for the most attractive option
EVALUATION
Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent
than unattractive people. The halo effect persisted even when the participants were informed they had no particular
