Relationships

Evolutionary Explanations for Sexual Selection:

Definitions:
- Sexual selection: An evolutionary explanation for partner
preference which suggests that partners are chosen based on how
desirable their characteristics are, and how beneficial they are for
survival.
- More desirable characteristics mean that the organism is
more likely to be selected for reproduction, thus increasing
the likelihood of those characteristics being passed down.
Less desirable characteristics become extinct as they have
less appeal in sexual selection.

- Anisogamy: Refers to the differences between male gametes and

female gametes.
- Sperm cells are small, very fast & mobile, do not require
much energy to be created and are produced continuously
from puberty to old age.
- Egg cells are large, immobile / static and require a great deal
of energy to be created, they are also limited as they are only
produced during the fertility window.

- Thus being said, it suggests that the female gametes are a far
rarer resource than the male gametes. Therefore it suggests that
males aim to create as many offspring as possible, whereas
females are more cautious with regards to who they procreate
with, seeking to produce offspring with as many desirable
characteristics as possible.
- Inter-sexual selection: Competition between the sexes
- Strategies that males use to select females, or females use
to select males.
- It is the preferred strategy of the females as they seek quality
over quantity. Females make a greater investment of time in
deciding offspring as pointed out by Triver (1972). This is
because the consequences of choosing a poor mating
partner is greater for the female, due to their limited gametes
and limited fertility window. This means females will invest
more time in choosing a mating partner with desirable
characteristics so that her offspring will have the same
characteristics and thus have the best chance of survival.
- This is also supported by Robert Fisher’s sexy sons
hypothesis in 1930 in which he states that desirable
characteristics today were also viewed as desirable
characteristics in the past, and as a result they had
higher chances of mating as females wanted their
offspring to have these characteristics to have the best
chance of survival as it makes them more desirable as
a mating partner.

- Intrasexual selection: Competition within the sexes, strategy

preferred by males. Quantity over quality. There is competition
between males to be selected by a female to have offspring with.
The winner passes on his characteristics to the offspring, and the
loser does not. The loser characteristics have a greater tendency
to go extinct.
- This leads to dimorphism, as males and females will look
very different since males compete between each other to be
chosen by females, therefore males will work to be larger to
have a competitive advantage as they will be more likely to
be selected by females. On the other hand, females do not
compete to be selected by males, therefore they maintain
their appearance.
- Males prefer younger females due to their fertility
window.
Evaluation for Evolutionary explanations of sexual
selection:

- Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female

psychology students around campus asking individuals of
the opposite sex if they would be willing to have
intercourse with them. 0% of females agreed to the
request whereas 75% of males did agree to the request.
This supports the idea of females preferring intersexual
selection as they prefer quality over quantity and supports
the idea of males preferring intrasexual selection as they
prefer quantity over quality.

- Buss (1989) surveyed 10000 adults in 33 countries asking

evolutionary related questions. He found that females
placed greater importance on resource based
characteristics that aid survival such as financial stability
and ambition whereas males valued physical
attractiveness more. Therefore supporting the idea that
females value characteristics that aid chances of survival
when choosing a partner compared to males.

- Social and cultural influence is overlooked in the

evolutionary theories of sexual selection. Women now
have greater roles within the work force and Tamas et al
has suggested that as a result their sexual preferences
are no longer resource related.
 Factors affecting attraction: Self Disclosure

Self disclosure is the process of gradually transitioning from

revealing low risk information to revealing high risk information.

- Social penetration theory (1973) developed by Altman and

Taylor describes how relationships develop. They use the
process of self disclosure to explain this as it shows the
formation of trust between two individuals allowing them to
penetrate into each other's lives and form a deeper
connection.
- Self disclosure has two elements. Breadth and depth.
- Breadth is defined as the r3ange of information
discussed during self disclosure, how much
information is disclosed.
- Depth is defined as the intimacy of the information
disclosed, or in other words how important it is /
whether it is high risk or low risk.
- At the beginning of a relationship, if breadth and
depth during self disclosure is high it could produce a
reaction of TMI in the other individual and thus cause
them to back away due to feelings of being
overwhelmed.
- As a relationship gradually develops, breadth and
depth of self disclosure should gradually increase.

- If a partner is dissatisfied, they can choose to self

disclose less and less information, this is called
depenetration as the other individual begins to slowly
withdraw from the relationship.
- Reis and Shaver (1988) pointed out that although Breadth
and Depth of self disclosure is important, reciprocity of self
disclosure is also just as important as it allows feelings of
intimacy and trust to develop further, thus aiding in the
progression of a relationship.

Evaluation Points:
- Sprecher and Hendrick et al (2004) discovered that males
and females who utilised self disclosure within their
relationships were more satisfied and were more likely to
have a successful relationship. They discovered a strong
positive relationship between self disclosure and
satisfaction. Therefore indicating that self disclosure is a
key factor in the success of a relationship

- Haas and Stafford (1988) found that 57% of homosexual

men and women believed that self disclosure was the key
behind the maintenance of their relationships. Therefore
highlighting the importance of self disclosure in helping
maintain and develop relationships

- Cultural differences are not accounted for. Nu Tang et al

(2013) discovered that self disclosure was lower in China
than it was in the U.S, a collectivist and individualistic
culture respectively. However, satisfaction levels were very
similar in both, therefore indicating that self disclosure is
more valued in individualistic cultures than in collectivist
cultures and a relationship can still succeed with lower
levels of it.
 Factors affecting physical attraction:

Physical attractiveness is defined as how appealing an

individual's appearance is viewed, it is impacted by beauty
standards, etc.

- Halo effect: Having positive preconceptions about

someone as they are viewed as physically attractive.
- Dion (1972) discovered that individuals viewed as
attractive were more likely to have their character
described with positive adjectives than those viewed
as unattractive.
- This creates a self fulfilling prophecy in which we
believe that attractive individuals have positive
behavioural characteristics, which makes them more
attractive to us; causing us to behave positively
towards them.

Matching hypothesis (Walster and Walster, 1969) suggests that

we are attracted to those we perceive to be similar to us in
attractiveness, and also have similar behavioural attributes.
- A dance was set up between a select group of males and
females, objective observers rated these individuals on
physical attractiveness and these descriptions were then
provided to the participants. They were then told they
would be randomly matched with a partner based on their
description, however they were matched randomly.

- The hypothesis was not supported, it was discovered that

the individuals believed to be the most attractive were also
the most liked.
 - Berscheid et al (1971) replicated this study but
allowed participants to choose their partners and
discovered that they chose partners that matched
their attractiveness.

Evaluation Points:

- Palmer and Peterson (2012) discovered that individuals

viewed as more physically attractive were also believed to
have better political knowledge and a greater intellect. It
supports the halo effect as it means that individuals are
more likely to vote for those who are more attractive
simply because of the halo effect, and not because they
actually know that they are knowledgeable politically.

- Cunningham et al (1995) discovered that what is viewed

as attractive in certain societies is very prominent within
those societies thus supporting physical attractiveness as
an evolutionary explanation for attraction. These
characteristics are most desirable, and thus due to greater
chances of finding a mating partner they have become
most prominent. Therefore physical attractiveness also
acts as an evolutionary explanation for attraction.

- Lindsay Taylor et al (2011) found that online daters sought

meetings with partners that were viewed as more
attractive than them. This disproves the matching
hypothesis as it suggests that individuals do not take into
account their own attractiveness when seeking a partner.
 Filter Theory

- Filter theory is an idea describing how individuals

narrow down their potential selection of partners to
a field of desirables.

Social Demographic:
- A factor that influences potential partners from meeting
each other in the first place, includes data such as
geographic location, ethnicity, social class, etc. Many
relationships are formed between shared social
demographics.

Similarity in Attitudes:
- We find partners who share our values more attractive,
this is important in relationships that have been shorter
than 18 months as there is a greater need for agreement
over basic values.

Complementarity
- This concerns the ability of partners to meet each other's
needs, this is more important in relationships longer than
18 months and similarities become less important. It is
replaced by a need to balance each other's traits and
needs / wants.
 Evaluation:
- A strength of filter theory is the research support
surrounding it. Kerckhoff and Davis conducted a study by
sending out a questionnaire to partners, one group being
in a relationship shorter than 18 months, the other longer.
They discovered that relationships shorter than 18 months
placed greater importance on similarity in attitudes
whereas relationships longer than 18 months placed more
importance on complementing each other's needs.
Therefore highlighting the accuracy of filter theory.

- Montoya et al (2018) in a meta-analysis of 313 studies

discovered that actual similarity does not have as great of
an impact on satisfaction within a relationship compared to
perceived relationship. This therefore indicates that
similarity in attitudes is not actually important if partners
perceive themselves to be similar.

- The increased use of online dating apps and platforms has

reduced the importance of social demographic in filtering
out the field of desirables as online dating becomes more
prevalent. Therefore filter theory can be considered
slightly outdated as a result.
 Social Exchange Theory
- A theory of how relationships form and develop by
suggesting that partners provide certain things (costs)
such as time, and receive a reward for it (attention,
affection, etc.)
- We try to minimise losses and maximise profits and
we judge our satisfaction in relationships based on
the reward / profit we receive

- CL: Comparison level is one of the ways we measure

rewards and costs in a relationship. The CL is the amount
of rewards you believe you deserve from a relationship, it
is determined by factors such as self esteem. We believe
a relationship is worth pursuing if our CL is relatively high.

- CLalt: A comparison of the rewards we are receiving from

current relationships compared to rewards we believe we
could receive from a relationship with a different person.
SET believes that we will remain in our current relationship
if our CL is higher than our CLalt.
- If the costs of our current relationship outweigh the
rewards, alternatives become more attractive.

Stages of relationship development:

- Sampling stage: Experimenting with rewards and costs in
our own relationships to see the rewards we receive at the
costs we incur.
- Bargaining stage: Romantic partners exchange profits and
costs, negotiating which reward is most profitable.
- Commitment stage: Costs and rewards become more
predictable and relationship becomes more stable.
- Institutionalisation stage: Partners settle down as costs
and rewards become established.

Evaluation:
- SET suggests that we become dissatisfied after costs
exceed rewards, however Argyle (1987) suggests that we
do not monitor costs and rewards throughout the
relationship, but we only pay attention to the costs and
rewards after we are dissatisfied. Therefore costs and
rewards being monitored are an effect of dissatisfaction,
rather than a cause.

- SET is vague, and hard to quantify. Rewards and costs

are easy to define superficially, however investigations on
rewards and costs and SET in general are difficult to
conduct due to difficulty in quantifying / operationalizing
rewards and costs. Therefore the theory is difficult to
investigate.

- Clark and Mills (2011) argue that it is difficult to use

economics to explain relationships as partners do not
constantly monitor rewards and costs, and they do not
treat each other based on said rewards and costs,
otherwise it would destroy the underlying trust.
 Equity Theory
- Walster (1978) argue that equity (fairness) in rewards and
costs is more important than maximising rewards and
minimising costs.
- In other words, if one partner is overbenefitting and
one is under benefitting, there can be dissatisfaction.
- The ratio of costs to rewards matters more than the
size of costs and rewards.

- Consequences of inequity
- Changes in perceived equity can produce
dissatisfaction if partners feel that the other is getting
more out of the relationship than they are.

- Dealing with inequity:

- The underbenefitted partner is motivated to
make the relationship more equitable as long as
they believe it is still salvageable, the more they
feel they are under benefitting, the harder they
will work to make it more equitable
- On the other hand, they can change their
perceptions of their rewards and costs to
convince themselves their relationship is still
equitable. This can involve seeing what they
perceived as costs in the past as the norm.
 Evaluation
- Utne et al (1984) investigated partners that had been
married for over two years, they discovered that partners
that perceive their costs and rewards as equitable are
more satisfied than those who do not. This supports the
idea that equity produces satisfaction in relationships.

- Katherin et al (2007) discovered that cultural differences

are not accounted for, and that in individualistic cultures
partners are more satisfied in equitable relationships,
whereas in collectivist cultures, partners are more satisfied
in relationships where they are overbenefitting. Therefore
equity theory is limited because it is only applicable to
certain cultures.

- Grot and Clark (2001) argue that it is not a lack of equity

that produces dissatisfaction, as partners do not monitor
whether or not they are having an equitable relationship
until they are dissatisfied. Perceived inequity is an effect of
already being dissatisfied. This is a limitation as it
suggests that equity theory is an effect of dissatisfaction
and not a cause.
 Rusbult’s Investment Theory
- Suggests commitment depends on three factors.

1) Satisfaction which is measured by comparison of rewards

and costs, if rewards exceed costs partners can be
considered as satisfied.

2) CLalt, if the comparison level of alternatives is greater

than our CL, then we will lose commitment to that
relationship and seek alternatives as they are more
profitable, or just remain single.

3) Investment
○ Introduced by Rusbult as he believed that satisfaction
and CLalt were not enough to explain why some
romantic relationships might remain intact.
○ How much has been invested into the relationship,
the greater the investment the greater the
commitment.
○ Investments can be defined as anything we stand to
lose if we withdraw from the relationship.
○ They can be extrinsic (resources that did not
previously feature in the relationship) or intrinsic
(resources we directly put into the relationship)
○ Tangible extrinsics can include cars bought together,
intangible extrinsics can include shared memories.
Tangible intrinsics can include possessions whereas
intangible intrinsics can include mutual friends.
 - If partners have high levels of satisfaction, alongside a low
CLalt and high investment, they will be committed to the
relationship.

Satisfaction versus commitment

- Commitment is the main reason why people choose to
remain in relationships whereas satisfaction is only a
contributing factor.
- Dissatisfied partners can be committed due to large
investments in the relationship that are difficult to let
go of.

Relationship maintenance mechanisms

- Forgiveness, accommodation, willingness to sacrifice for
the other
- Ridiculing alternatives, whilst overexaggerating your
partner’s positive attributes
 Evaluation Points
- A meta-analysis conducted in 2003 by Benjamin Le and
Agnew concluded that satisfaction, CLalt and investment
predict commitment, and they discovered that
relationships with high commitment levels are the most
stable and successful. Therefore suggesting that the
investment model is an effective model for explaining why
relationships can succeed.

- The model is supported by self report methods such as

questionnaires which introduces response bias and
therefore reduces validity of the model.

- Another limitation of the model is that it is reductionist.

Goodfriend and Agnew (2008) stated that partners are
committed in the beginning despite not having made
investments in each others’ relationship, this is due to
investments in future plans. This is disregarded by the
investment model thus it fails to explain why relationships
can have high commitment early on.
Duck’s Phase Model of relationship breakdown

- Intrapsychic stage: Dissatisfied partner weighs up pros

and cons, believes that their situation should change and
begins planning for the future.

- Dyadic phase: They conclude that they should withdraw

from the relationship as they believe they have valid
reason to do so. This occurs at a point in which it is no
longer possible to avoid talking about the relationship, and
all feelings are aired out. From here an attempt can be
made to save the relationship or it can continue to be
broken up.

- Social phase: The split becomes public and the focus is

heavy on the social networks, friends can offer
reassurance and provide honesty, gossip can be
exchanged, etc.

- Grave dressing phase: The story is buried and a positive

narrative is spun in order to maintain a positive reputation /
public image.

Evaluation
- This model has low ecological validity as it is based on
individualistic cultures, in which breakups are frequent. In
collectivist cultures divorce / breakups are less frequent
and involve wider family, meaning the stages likely differ.

- It underexplains the early phases of breakdown as

participants who describe their early phases of breakdown
are speaking retrospectively, therefore the phase
 description is likely not fully representative of the range of
emotions that can be experienced by the individual
meaning that the model has lower accuracy.

Virtual Relationships
- Sproul and Kiesler (1986) believe that virtual relationships
are less effective than FtF relationships as there are
reduced cues.
- This includes nonverbal cues such as facial
expressions, etc.
- The reduced cues produce deindividuation which
causes people to behave in ways they wouldn’t in
real life.

- Walther (1996) disagrees in the hyperpersonal model, and

believes that virtual relationships lead to greater self
disclosure. This is because they develop quicker and more
intensely.
- Two key features of the hyperpersonal model include:
- Selective self presentation: The sender of a message
has more control over their image as they have more
control over what they say, this allows them to
behave and portray themselves in an ideal way.
- The receiver develops a positive image of the sender
and positively reinforces their selective self
presentation.

- Bargh et al (2002) states that anonymity also affects

behaviours as it causes people to feel less responsible for
their actions leading them to behave differently, they could
self disclose far more as a result.
Effects of absence of gating in relationships:
- McKenna and Bargh (1999) believe that a gate is any
obstacle that prevents a relationship from forming /
developing.
- In FtF, there are many gates, such as potential
physical unattractiveness, anxiety, etc.
- In virtual relationships, gates are far less prevalent.
- A benefit of these gates being less prevalent is that
relationships are more likely to form, and they are
more likely to be healthy due to increased self
disclosure as a result of factors such as anonymity.
- It allows people to display their true selves as there
are no gates preventing relationships from forming
such as physical unattractiveness.
- An issue with this is that the absence of gates can
also cause people to portray themselves with an
entirely fictional identity, deceiving individuals with
regards to their age, gender, etc.

Evaluation Points
- Walther (1995) disagrees with the reduced cues theory,
and suggests that they are not absent, but rather different.
Examples of non verbal cues can include reduced
messaging or longer time intervals between messages.
This means it is unlikely that the reduced cues theory is
true as there are simply different cues rather than no cues.

- McKenna and Bargh (2001) discovered that virtual

relationships are especially beneficial for shy people as
they have a lower likelihood of forming a relationship and
maintaining it in real life. They discovered that 71% of shy
 people who formed a virtual relationship maintained it for
longer than 2 years.

Parasocial Relationships
- Three levels of parasocial relationships:
- Entertainment social: Least intense, viewed as sources of
entertainment and gossip, etc.
- Intense personal: Obsessive thoughts about the celebrity,
having strong romantic feelings, etc.
- Borderline pathological: Believing you are in a relationship
with the celebrity, can lead to criminal acts being
performed in the name of the celebrity, etc. The most
extreme version of celebrity obsession.

- Absorption addiction model: Individuals can be triggered to

become more intensely obsessed with celebrities as an
escape from personal traumas in their own lives, etc.
- Absorption: Seeking fulfilment from the celebrity
worship causes them to focus their attention on the
celebrity entirely, they identify with them.
- Addiction: The individual needs to increase their
‘dose’ to gain satisfaction, can produce extreme
behaviours such as stalking, etc.
Two attachment types are associated with poor emotional
development including insecure-resistant and
insecure-avoidant attachment types.
- Insecure-resistant attachment types are more likely to
form parasocial relationships due to a sense of
unfulfillment. Insecure resistant are more likely to avoid
relationships as a whole.