Evolutionary Explanations of Partner Preferences
According to evolutionary psychology, partner preferences are driven by sexual selection.
This means that both males and females choose partners in order to maximise their chances of reproductive success.
Individuals with traits that maximise reproductive success are more likely to survive and pass on the genes responsible for their success.
Males have gametes which are able to reproduce quickly with little energy expenditure. Female gametes are much less plentiful and require far more energy to produce. This difference (anisogamy) means that males and females use distinct strategies to choose a partner.
Generally males use intra-sexual selection and females use inter-sexual selection
Intra-Sexual Selection
Intra-sexual selection is where members of one sex compete with one another for access to the other sex. This leads to male-female dimorphism, which is accentuation of secondary sexual characteristics in those with greater reproductive fitness.
Anisogamy suggests that a male’s best evolutionary strategy is to have as many partners as possible.
Males must compete with other males to present themselves as the most attractive mate to fertile female partners.
Males might engage in mate guarding where they guard their female partner to prevent them mating with anyone else.
Males are very fearful of having to raise another man’s child (cuckoldry).
Inter-Sexual Selection
Inter-sexual selection is where members of one sex choose from available prospective mates according to attractiveness.
Anisogamy suggests that a women’s best evolutionary strategy is to be selective when choosing a partner.
Females will tend to seek a male who displays characteristics of physical health, high status, and resources.
The male partner is able to protect them and provide for their children. Although this ability may have equated to muscular strength in our evolutionary past, in modern society it is more likely to relate to occupation, social class and wealth.
Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations of Partner Preferences
Advantages:
+ Buss conducted a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries and found that females reported valuing resource-based characteristics (e,g occupation) whilst men valued good looks and preferred younger partners.
+ Clark and Hatfield conducted a study where male and female psychology students were asked to approach fellow students of Florida State University (of the opposite sex) and ask them for one of three things; to go on a date, to go back to their apartment, or to go to bed with them. About 50% of both men and women agreed to the date, but whilst 69% of men 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.
Disadvantages:
- The evolutionary approach is deterministic suggesting that we have little free-will in partner choice. However, everyday experience tells us we do have some control over our partner preferences.
- Evolutionary approaches to mate preferences are socially sensitive in that they promote traditional (sexist) views regarding what ‘natural’ male and female behaviors are, which does not apply to modern society. Women are now more career orientated and independent therefore will not look for resourceful partners as much as they may have had to in decades past.
- Evolutionary theory makes little attempt to explain other types of relationships, e.g. non-heterosexual relationships, and cultural variations in relationships which exist across the world, e.g. arranged marriages.
Self-Disclosure
- One factors that affects attraction in romantic relationships is self-disclosure.
- This is the revealing of personal information, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences to another person.
- Self-disclosure is a central concept in social penetration theory proposed by Altman and Taylor. This theory claims that by gradually revealing emotions and experiences to their partner, couples gain a greater understanding of each other and display trust. Therefore, self-disclosure will increase attraction.
- As people build trust in their partner, the breadth and depth of self-disclosure will increase. In the beginning, people only disclose superficial details about themselves, such as hobbies and interests, and gradually reveal more intimate details, such as family values and difficult experiences.
Self-disclosing too quickly (e.g. on a first date) can reduce attraction.
People expect the same level of self-disclosure from others as they actually give. The more self-disclosure someone gives, the more self-disclosure they expect in return. This is known as reciprocal self-disclosure
Self disclosure evaluation
Advantages:
+ Research conducted by Altman and Taylor supports the theory of self- disclosure. They found that self-disclosure on the first date is inappropriate and did not increase attraction levels. The person who was self-disclosing was seen as maladjusted and not very likeable.
+ Tal-Or conducted research which agrees with the fundamental concept of self-disclosure being a gradual process that can affect attraction for romantic relationships. Analysis of reality TV shows like Big Brother revealed that viewers did not like contestants who self-disclosed early on. They preferred the contestant who self-disclosed gradually.
+ Kito found research evidence to support the idea of self-disclosure across different cultures. Kito investigated Japanese and American students in different types of relationships, and found that self-disclosure was high for Japanese and American students in romantic relationships that were heterosexual.
DISADVANATGES:
- Sprecher found research evidence that the level of self-disclosure received is the best predictor of liking and loving, rather than the amount of self-disclosure given. This goes against the idea of reciprocal self-disclosure.
- It seems unlikely that attraction to a potential partner is based on self- disclosure alone. Self-disclosure might be an important element, but other factors are also needed in order to increase attraction, such as physical attraction, similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs.
Physical Attractiveness
Physical attractiveness affects attraction in romantic relationships.
Men place a great deal of importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a female partner in the short-term and the long-term.
Research has shown that physical attractiveness is also very important for females when choosing a male partner, especially in the short-term (it is less important in the long-term).
What is considered to be physically attractive varies across culture and time.
Halo Effect
When the general impression of a person is incorrectly formed from one characteristic alone (e.g. physical attractiveness).
Physically attractive people are often seen as more sociable, optimistic, successful and trustworthy.
People tend to behave positively towards people who are physically attractive and this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where the physically attractive person behaves even more positively because of the positive attention they receive.
Evaluation of the Halo Effect
Advantages:
+ Palmer and Peterson found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable than unattractive people. The halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants found out that the physically attractive person had no expertise in politics.
Disadvantages:
- Towhey asked male and female participants to rate how much they liked an individual based on a photograph. Participants also completed a MACHO scale which measured sexist attitudes and behaviour. It was found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness. Those who scored low on the questionnaire did not value physical attractiveness. Therefore, the influence of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors (e.g. personality).
The Matching Hypothesis
When initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek partners that have the same social desirability as themselves.
Physical attractiveness becomes the major determining factor as it is an accessible way for each person to rate the other person as a potential partner before forming a relationship.
Most people would prefer to form a relationship with someone who is physically attractive but in order to not be rejected, many people will approach others who are of a similar level of attractiveness to themselves.
Evaluation of The Matching Hypothesis
Advantages:
+ Fangold found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples. He established a strong positive correlation between the partners’ ratings of physical attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis.
Disadvantages:
- Walster invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party. They were randomly matched to a partner; however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of physical attractiveness. At the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them. Contrary to the matching hypothesis students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.
- Sometimes a very physically attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person. Often a rebalance of traits will occur, whereby the less physically attractive person has some other traits to make up for their lack of physical attractiveness (e.g. being rich, having a high status or great personality). This is called complex matching whereby a very attractive person forms a relationship with an unattractive person.
Filter Theory
Kerchoff and David proposed we use filtering to reduce the field of available partners down to a field of desirable partners.
When we meet a potential partner we engage in three levels of filtering; social demography, similarity in attitude, and complementarity of needs. We tend to be attracted to those who pass through a series of filters.
From the outset we screen out people based on age, sex, education, social background etc.
We are more attracted to people from similar backgrounds to our own.
Then we choose people who have similar attitudes to our own (similarity in attitude).
In the longer term, we choose people who complement our own traits (complementarity of needs).
Evaluation of Filter Theory
Advantages:
+ Research conducted by Taylor found evidence to support filter theory. He found that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 had married someone from their own ethnic group, supporting the social demography part of filter theory. Individuals seem to choose partners that are similar to them and have a similar background to them.
+ Research conducted by Hoyle supports the filter theory when looking at the importance of attitude similarity and sharing common values for attraction. Hoyle found that perceived attitude similarity can predict attraction more strongly than actual attitude similarity. Tidwell tested this hypothesis during a speed dating event whereby participants had to make quick decisions about attraction. He measured actual and perceived similarity of attitudes using a questionnaire and found that perceived similarity predicted romantic liking more than actual similarity.
Disadvantages:
- Levinger conducted research using 330 couples and found no evidence that similarity of attitudes or complementarity of needs was important when looking at how permanent the relationship was.
- Filter theory has been criticised because it suggests that people are attracted to each other because they have similar social demography. Anderson found from his longitudinal study of cohabiting partners that they became more similar in terms of their attitudes and emotional responses over time which increased attraction. At the start of the relationship, their attitudes were not so similar. This is called emotional convergence.
- Research using online dating has shown a lack of support for filter theory in that it might not be an accurate way to see how relationships progress and form. The internet has meant that there is a reduction in social demographic variables when we meet someone, and it is now easier to meet people who live far away, or who have a different ethnicity, social class and background. We might meet people who are outside of our demographic limits, and this is very apparent now, compared to the past .
Social Exchange Theory
- An economic theory of romantic relationships based on the idea that relationships are, “like a business” where we monitor the rewards and the costs
- We want the maximum rewards from a relationship and the minimum costs. The theory suggests that individuals focus on getting out more than they put in.
- Those who offer rewards are attractive and those who are perceived to involve great costs are less attractive.
- Relationships that are mutually beneficial will succeed whereas relationships that are imbalanced will fail.
- We compare our present relationship to previous relationships we have had (comparison level).
- We compare our present partner to those around us who we could potentially have a relationship with (comparison level for alternatives). We look around for a “better deal” if our current relationship is not satisfactory.
Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory
ADVANTAGES:
+ Gottman found evidence that supports the social exchange theory. He found that individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges with their partner, and an excess of negative exchanges. In successful marriages where the relationship is happy, the ratio or positive to negative exchanges is 5:1, but in unsuccessful marriages the ratio is 1:1.
+ Social Exchange Theory has practical applications. Integrated couples therapy helps partners to break negative patterns of behaviours and decrease negative exchanges, while increasing positive exchanges. 66% of couples reported significant improvements in their relationship after receiving this form of therapy.
+ Different people perceive rewards and costs differently so this theory can account for individual differences in attraction.
DISADVANTAGES:
- Moghaddam has criticised the social exchange theory, as it is more applicable to individualistic cultures than collectivist cultures. The perceived costs and rewards of relationships might be very different from one culture to the next. Family values and compatibility might be more important rewards in collectivist cultures. In individualist cultures, rewards might be viewed as a partner buying expensive presents.
- Critics of this theory disagree with the idea that people spend a great deal of time monitoring their relationship in terms of rewards and costs. They argue that people only monitor rewards and costs once the relationship becomes dissatisfying. For instance, we only look at comparison levels in a relationship when we are already dissatisfied, not when we are happy and the relationship is successful.
- The social exchange theory is rooted in the Behaviourist Approach whereby the focus of relationship maintenance is about rewards and operant conditioning. However, some relationships have little rewards but many costs, (e.g. violent relationships) and yet but they still continue.
Equity Theory
- An economic model of relationships based on the idea of fairness for each partner.
- It emphasises the need for each partner to experience a balance between their costs and rewards.
- Distress will be felt if the relationship becomes unfair. If people over-benefit in their relationship and receive more rewards than their partner they might feel guilt or pity. If people under-benefit in their relationship and receive less rewards than their partner, they might feel angry or sad.
- An imbalance of rewards can be tolerated as long as both parties accept the situation; then the relationship will continue.
- Equity does not always mean equality. Equity also means “fairness,” and each person in the relationship must feel that the relationship is fair.
- An equitable relationship has a fair ratio of rewards and costs for each individual.
Evaluation of Equity Theory
ADVANTAGES:
+ DeMaris studied 1500 couples as part of the US National Survey of Families and Households. He found that if women were under-benefitting to a high degree, then there was a high risk of divorce occurring. Therefore equity and inequity seem to be very important for women in a relationship.
+ Brosnan found that female monkeys became angry if they were denied a prize (grapes) for playing a game with a researcher, especially if they saw another monkey who had not played the game receive the grapes instead. The monkeys got so angry that they hurled food at the experimenter. It seems that ideas of equity are rooted in our ancient origins.
DISADVANTAGES:
- Equity theory is more applicable to individualistic cultures rather than collectivist cultures. In individualistic cultures people might be more concerned with equal rewards and costs in order for a relationship to be successful. However, in collectivist cultures, extended family networks and family values might be more important when maintaining a relationship, rather than focusing on rewards and costs and the idea of equity. Relationships in collectivist cultures might be successful due to cultural expectations and obligations of roles rather than equity of rewards and costs.
- Buunk found no association between equity in a relationship and the future quality and maintenance of a relationship. Therefore just because a relationship is equal and fair in terms of rewards and costs; it does not mean that the relationship will progress. People have free will to choose whether to continue with a relationship or not; and just because a relationship is equitable it does not mean the relationship will necessarily continue and last.
- Research conducted by Mills and Clark criticised equity theory. They said that it is not possible to assess equity in loving relationships, as many of the rewards and costs are emotional/psychological and cannot be easily quantified or measured. If we measure rewards and costs then it could diminish the quality of love in the relationship which could be damaging.
Investment Model
Rusbult developed social exchange theory by proposing the investment model.
Rusbult saw commitment as a key factor in sustaining a relationship. Commitment depends on satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment.
Satisfaction is determined by available alternatives, better alternatives equals less satisfaction.
Investment acts as a deterrent to leaving a relationship.
Intrinsic investment refers to the resources put into the relationship directly (e.g. emotion, effort etc.)
Extrinsic investment refers to resources arising out of the relationship (e.g. children, mutual friends etc.).
Evaluation of Rusbult’s Investment Model
Advantages:
+ Research conducted by Van Lange supports Rusbult’s investment model. He studied students from Taiwan and from the Netherlands and found evidence that high commitment levels in a relationship were related to high satisfaction, low quality of alternatives and high investment size.
+ The investment model is very useful because it can help explain infidelity. This might occur if a person’s current relationship has low satisfaction and there is a high quality of alternative. Both of these factors would lessen the commitment levels and the present relationship is likely to end. Investment model can also explain why some people might stay in abusive relationships; the satisfaction is low and the victim should really leave the relationship. However, they might stay in the abusive relationship because there are a low quality of alternatives and the investment in the present relationship is too high, e.g. they have children together.
+ Investment model has the strength of being applied to explain the factor of commitment in a variety of different relationships. Rusbult administered investment model scale questionnaires to participants in homosexual relationships and found that all factors of the investment model were found to be important when looking at commitment.
- Investment model has been criticised because it is very difficult to measure the factors of commitment, satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives. Rusbult responded to this criticism and constructed an investment model scale which could measure each of the key variables in a reliable and valid way. The research that Rusbult conducted using these scales involved self- reports, and this then created further problems of social desirability bias.
- Lin criticises investment model because it does not take into account gender differences that might exist when looking at relationships. Lin found that females tend to report higher satisfaction, poorer quality of alternatives, greater investment and stronger commitment in relationships compared to males.
Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
Relationship breakdown occurs when one or both people in the relationship feel that the relationship is not working, and wish for the relationship to end
four phases in the breakdown of a relationship. (Duck)
- Intra-psychic Processes:
- The dissatisfied partner privately thinks about their relationship and brood about the problems they have identified.
The dissatisfied partner focuses on their partner’s faults and the fact that they are under-benefitting from the relationship.
They might feel depressed and withdraw from social interactions with their partner. - Dyadic Processes:
The dissatisfied partner privately communicates with their partner about the fact that they are dissatisfied with the relationship.
Both partners might think carefully about investments they have in the relationship
There could be reconciliation if the partner accepts the validity of the dissatisfied partner’s views and promises to change their behaviour or makes agreements to sort out issues.
Marital therapy might be useful at this point if the process becomes difficult.
The dissatisfied partner might still believe that, “I would be justified in withdrawing from the relationship”, in which case, the breakdown process would continue. - Social Processes:
If there is a break up, it is made public to friends and family which means that the problem is harder to deny or ignore.
Advice and support are given from people outside the relationship and alliances are made. This can involve criticising former partners and scape-goating.
Younger adults might experience breakdown very frequently in this period of their life, as they are striving to meet their ideal partner and are testing the market.
Older couples experience breakdown less frequently, and some might be resigned to not finding a new partner in the future if the relationship breaks down. - Grave Dressing Processes:
As the relationship dies and breaks down, there is the need to mourn and justify our actions - We need to create an account of what the relationship was like and why it broke down.
Ex- partners begin their post relationship lives and begin to publicise accounts of how the relationship broke down, making sure their social credit remains high. Stories might be told about betrayal, or how they both struggled to make it work and different versions of the relationship are given to different people.
Partners might reinterpret their point of view of their ex partners e.g. “they were rebellious” become “they were irresponsible.”
Evaluation of Duck’s Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown
ADVANTAGES:
+ Duck’s phase model was devised in 1982. However, improvements have been made to the model as time has passed. Duck teamed up with a psychologist called Rollie in 2006 and introduced a fifth phase to this model called, the resurrection phase. This is where the person engages in personal growth and gets prepared for new romantic relationships.
+ Support for Duck’s phase model comes from the social exchange theory. This theory would support Duck’s phase model and would state that if a relationship has high costs and minimal rewards then the relationship is not worth continuing, but instead would breakdown.
DISADVANTAGES:
- Akert has criticized Duck’s phase model. Akert found that the role that people had in deciding if the relationship should breakdown, was the most important prediction of the breakdown experience. Akert found that those who did not initiate the end of the relationship were the most miserable, lonely, depressed and angry in the weeks after the relationship ended. Those who initiate the break down were the least stressed and least upset, but did feel guilty.
- Duck’s phase model ignores gender differences that exist when analysing the breakdown of relationships. Kassin found research evidence to suggest that females emphasise unhappiness, lack of emotional support and incompatibility as reasons for relationship breakdown, whereas males state lack of sex and/or fun. Females often wish to stay friends with an ex-partner, but males would rather have a clean break and not stay friends.
- Duck’s phase model could be viewed as overly simplistic. It is reducing the complex phenomenon of relationship breakdown into four simple stages that must follow a specific order. In the real world it would seem unlikely that relationship breakdown can be compartmentalised or reduced into four basic stages. Relationship breakdown is very unpredictable, and it could be the case that breakdown does not happen in this chronological order. Some couples break up, make up, break up, etc.
Self-Disclosure in Virtual Relationships
One difference between face-to-face and virtual relationships is that self-disclosure tends to occur faster in virtual relationships.
One reason for this is the anonymity associated with virtual relationships
People tend to hold off disclosing personal information in real life for fear of ridicule or rejection, unless they are confident that they can trust the person and that information won’t be leaked to mutual friends. However, there is much
less risk of this in virtual relationships.
Hyperpersonal Model (Walther)
Walther proposed the hyperpersonal model of virtual relationships.
This model suggests that as self-disclosure in virtual relationships happens faster than in face-to-face ones, virtual relationships quickly become more intense and feel more intimate and meaningful. They can also end more quickly as it is difficult to sustain the same level of intense self-disclosure for a long time.
Walther also suggests that virtual relationships may feel more intimate because it is easier to manipulate self-disclosure online than face-to-face.
Participants in online conversations have more time to edit their responses to present themselves in a more positive light (selective self-presentation). Projecting a positive image will make a virtual partner want to disclose more personal information, increasing the intensity of the relationship.
-
Abnormality14
-
Phobias23
-
Research Methods Lessons 1 - 5 Experimental Methods, Interviews Aims And Hypothesis66
-
Depression17
-
OCD23
-
Research Methods Lessons 6-1060
-
Approaches71
-
Memory83
-
Attachment57
-
Research Methods Lessons 11-1530
-
Social Influence42
-
Research Methods A222
-
Schizophrenia68
-
Forensic Psychology49
-
Relationships43
-
Issues And Debates4
-
Biopsychology30
-
Approaches A21
