----------------------------------------
Relationships
Topics:
● Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
● Self-disclosure Affecting Attraction
● Physical Attractiveness Affecting Attraction
● Filter Theory Affecting Attraction
● Social Exchange Theory
● Equity Theory
● Rusbult’s Investment Model
● Duck’s Phase Model
● Virtual Relationships in Social Media
● Parasocial Relationships
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
Sexual Selection → Darwin (1871) proposed that males and females use different
strategies to enhance the chances of reproductive success. This explains why some
characteristics act as an advantage to human reproductive success because they are seen to
be attractive by the opposite sex. Partner preferences therefore evolve with a popular
An isogam y → the differences in female and male sex cells which can be used to explain
different strategies adopted by males and females for reproductive success.
♀ Females produce one egg per month for a limited number of fertile years. This
means they have limited reproductive opportunities. This may explain why
females are more selective than males in choosing a sexual parttner and may
want to wait longer before engaging in intercourse.
♂ Males have an unlimited production of sperm available meaning they are not
hindered by limited reproductive opportunities. This may explain why males
are typically more comfortable having sex earlier in a relationship.
Mesom or ph → inverted triangle body shape
In tr a-sexual selection → Males will compete with members of the same sex to
attract members of the opposite sex. This is a quantity over uality approach whereby
,males are more likely to be comfortable having casual sex early in a relationship. The
male who wins the competition reproduces and is able to pass on the characteristics
that enabled his victory onto his offspring. Because males have to compete with other
males to mate due to anisogamy, they will show distinct preference for women who
are young and most fertile.
● Sexual dim or phism → The evolved physical differences between male and
females based on mate choice
In ter -sexual selection → Females employ a quality over quantity approach
whereby they invest more time and commitment before birth and after the birth of
her offspring compared to males. Women have more to lose from the relationship
and so their mating strategy is to be more selective in choosing a partner in
comparison to males. Women will seek genetically fit partners who are able to
protect her and provide resources.
● Th e r un aw ay pr ocess → If the female is constantly choosing to reproduce
with the best genetic then those genes will ‘runaway’ and get stronger
● Sexy sons hypothesis → when it comes time for her son to reproduce, if he is
not genetically attractive then her genes will die out.
+ One strength of sexual selection as an explanation for partner preferences is
that it has research support. Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000
adults in 33 countries. He asked questions relating to a variety of attributes
that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference. He
found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics
than males did, such as good financial prospects and ambition. Males valued
physical attractiveness and youth, as signs of good reproductive capacity,
more than females did. These findings reflect consistent sex differences cross-
culturally in partner preferences and support the predictions from sexual
selection theory. Therefore, this increases the external validity of sexual
selection theory.
+ A strength of evolutionary theory for partner preference is that there is
research support for intersexual selection. Clarke and Hatfield found that 0%
of women agreed to have casual sex with a stranger when asked by a male
confederate, whereas 75% of males agreed to have casual sex with a female
confederate. This supports the intersexual selection theory as the females were
more selective in their sexual partners than males. Therefore, this increases
the internal validity of the evolutionary theory of sexual selection.
, - However, the assumption that one mating strategy may be adaptive for
all males (intrasexual selection) and one mating strategy may be
adaptive for all females (intersexual selection) can be seen as alpha
biased. Buss and Schmitt argue that both males and females adopt
similar mating strategies when seeking long term relationships. For
example, both sexes are choosy and look for partners who are loving,
loyal and kind. This shows that for long term relationships at least,
male and female mating strategies are more similar than the theory
suggests. Therefore, the evolutionary explanation can be seen to
exaggerate the difference between male and female partner preference.
This misrepresents the mating strategies of both men and women,
further reducing the validity of evolutionary explanations for partner
preferences.
- However, these evolutionary explanations fail to consider the social and
cultural influences that also affect partner preferences. Changes in social
norms such as attitudes towards casual sex and the availability of
contraception have happened much quicker than evolutionary changes.
Additionally, social changes such as greater equality between males and
females in the workplace also mean that females no longer rely on financial
support being provided by males and so these attributes are not necessarily
always favoured by females. This means that partner preferences are likely to
be an outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences.
Therefore, evolutionary explanations for partner preferences can be seen as
biologically reductionist, as by breaking down the complexity of partner
preferences to an evolutionary level, these social and cultural influences have
been ignored. This means that the evolutionary explanation provides an
oversimplified view of partner preferences and human reproductive
behaviour, making it an incomplete explanation leading to a loss of validity.
Self-disclosure Affecting Attraction
Self-disclosur e → the process through which we reveal information about ourselves to
a partner. Learning information about our partners helps us to feel like we understand
them better and, in doing so, it increases our attraction towards them.
Social Pen etr ation Theor y: (Altm an and Taylor , 1973)
1. Orientation stage = people are polite and cautious - topics like weather and
hobbies
Relationships
Topics:
● Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
● Self-disclosure Affecting Attraction
● Physical Attractiveness Affecting Attraction
● Filter Theory Affecting Attraction
● Social Exchange Theory
● Equity Theory
● Rusbult’s Investment Model
● Duck’s Phase Model
● Virtual Relationships in Social Media
● Parasocial Relationships
Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences
Sexual Selection → Darwin (1871) proposed that males and females use different
strategies to enhance the chances of reproductive success. This explains why some
characteristics act as an advantage to human reproductive success because they are seen to
be attractive by the opposite sex. Partner preferences therefore evolve with a popular
An isogam y → the differences in female and male sex cells which can be used to explain
different strategies adopted by males and females for reproductive success.
♀ Females produce one egg per month for a limited number of fertile years. This
means they have limited reproductive opportunities. This may explain why
females are more selective than males in choosing a sexual parttner and may
want to wait longer before engaging in intercourse.
♂ Males have an unlimited production of sperm available meaning they are not
hindered by limited reproductive opportunities. This may explain why males
are typically more comfortable having sex earlier in a relationship.
Mesom or ph → inverted triangle body shape
In tr a-sexual selection → Males will compete with members of the same sex to
attract members of the opposite sex. This is a quantity over uality approach whereby
,males are more likely to be comfortable having casual sex early in a relationship. The
male who wins the competition reproduces and is able to pass on the characteristics
that enabled his victory onto his offspring. Because males have to compete with other
males to mate due to anisogamy, they will show distinct preference for women who
are young and most fertile.
● Sexual dim or phism → The evolved physical differences between male and
females based on mate choice
In ter -sexual selection → Females employ a quality over quantity approach
whereby they invest more time and commitment before birth and after the birth of
her offspring compared to males. Women have more to lose from the relationship
and so their mating strategy is to be more selective in choosing a partner in
comparison to males. Women will seek genetically fit partners who are able to
protect her and provide resources.
● Th e r un aw ay pr ocess → If the female is constantly choosing to reproduce
with the best genetic then those genes will ‘runaway’ and get stronger
● Sexy sons hypothesis → when it comes time for her son to reproduce, if he is
not genetically attractive then her genes will die out.
+ One strength of sexual selection as an explanation for partner preferences is
that it has research support. Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000
adults in 33 countries. He asked questions relating to a variety of attributes
that evolutionary theory predicts are important in partner preference. He
found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics
than males did, such as good financial prospects and ambition. Males valued
physical attractiveness and youth, as signs of good reproductive capacity,
more than females did. These findings reflect consistent sex differences cross-
culturally in partner preferences and support the predictions from sexual
selection theory. Therefore, this increases the external validity of sexual
selection theory.
+ A strength of evolutionary theory for partner preference is that there is
research support for intersexual selection. Clarke and Hatfield found that 0%
of women agreed to have casual sex with a stranger when asked by a male
confederate, whereas 75% of males agreed to have casual sex with a female
confederate. This supports the intersexual selection theory as the females were
more selective in their sexual partners than males. Therefore, this increases
the internal validity of the evolutionary theory of sexual selection.
, - However, the assumption that one mating strategy may be adaptive for
all males (intrasexual selection) and one mating strategy may be
adaptive for all females (intersexual selection) can be seen as alpha
biased. Buss and Schmitt argue that both males and females adopt
similar mating strategies when seeking long term relationships. For
example, both sexes are choosy and look for partners who are loving,
loyal and kind. This shows that for long term relationships at least,
male and female mating strategies are more similar than the theory
suggests. Therefore, the evolutionary explanation can be seen to
exaggerate the difference between male and female partner preference.
This misrepresents the mating strategies of both men and women,
further reducing the validity of evolutionary explanations for partner
preferences.
- However, these evolutionary explanations fail to consider the social and
cultural influences that also affect partner preferences. Changes in social
norms such as attitudes towards casual sex and the availability of
contraception have happened much quicker than evolutionary changes.
Additionally, social changes such as greater equality between males and
females in the workplace also mean that females no longer rely on financial
support being provided by males and so these attributes are not necessarily
always favoured by females. This means that partner preferences are likely to
be an outcome of a combination of evolutionary and cultural influences.
Therefore, evolutionary explanations for partner preferences can be seen as
biologically reductionist, as by breaking down the complexity of partner
preferences to an evolutionary level, these social and cultural influences have
been ignored. This means that the evolutionary explanation provides an
oversimplified view of partner preferences and human reproductive
behaviour, making it an incomplete explanation leading to a loss of validity.
Self-disclosure Affecting Attraction
Self-disclosur e → the process through which we reveal information about ourselves to
a partner. Learning information about our partners helps us to feel like we understand
them better and, in doing so, it increases our attraction towards them.
Social Pen etr ation Theor y: (Altm an and Taylor , 1973)
1. Orientation stage = people are polite and cautious - topics like weather and
hobbies
