Evolutionary Explanation for Partner
Preferences
AO1 - knowledge AO3 - evaluation
Sexual selection - Darwin’s (1871) concept of sexual selection concerns Strength - Research support for inter-sexual selection
the selection of those characteristics that aid successful reproduction. Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students out across a university
campus. They approaches other students with the question, “Would you go to bed with me
tonight?” The study found that not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas
Anisogamy 75% of males did, immediately. This supports the view that females are choosier than males.
This refers to the differences between male and female sex cells. Male gametes However, the argument that one strategy is used by all males and another by all females is
(sperm) are small, highly mobile and continually produced in vast numbers. simplistic. At the very least, it appears that strategies differ according to the length of the
Female gametes (eggs) are relatively large, static and finitely produced over a relationship. Sexual strategies theory (Buss and Schmitt 2016) argues that both males and
limited time. This is means that there is never a shortage of fertile males but a females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships i.e, both can be
fertile female is a much rarer ‘resource’, giving rise to two types of sexual very choosy and look for particular characteristics.
selection.
Strength - Research support for intra-sexual selection
Inter-sexual selection David Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. He asked
This refers to the preferences of one sex (usually females) for members of the question relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in
opposite sex. Trivers (1972) pointed out that females make a greater investment partner preference. He found that females place higher value on resource-related
characteristics and male valued physical attractiveness and youth. This shows consistency
of commitment before, during and after the birth than males and thus, it pays for
across studies and across cultures.
her to be especially selective. For example, only choosing males with
characteristics that enable them to provide for her and her offspring. Fisher
(1930) developed a sexy sons hypothesis - the genes we see today are those Weakness - Ignores social and cultural influences
that enhanced reproductive success as females are likely to select males with Partner preferences over the past century have undoubtedly been influenced by rapidly
changing social norms of behaviour that develop much faster than evolutionary timescales
inherited ‘sexy’ traits that then become perpetuated. and instead come about by cultural factors e.g, the availability of contraception. Women have
greater roles in the workplace mean they are less dependent on men to provide. Bereczkei et
Intra-sexual selection al. (1997) argue that this social change has lead to a change in preferences for men, which
This refers to when members of one sex (usually males) compete with each other may no longer be resource-oriented. Evolutionary explanations are limited.
for access to members of the other sex. The victors are able to mate and so will
pass on their successful characteristics (e.g, being taller and stronger) and the Homosexuality
loser does not pass on their ‘losing’ characteristics. Given the minimal energy This theory does not explain the preferences of gay men and women, who are not likely to be
required for males to reproduce and lack of reproductive consequences, the assessing genetic fitness, although Lawson et al. (2014) found that in dating ads placed by
male’s optimum mating strategy is to compete in order to reproduce with as many straight and gay men and women, preferences were the same for both sexual orientations
fertile females as possible. relative to gender e.g, all women desired resource-oriented partners.
, Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-disclosure
AO1 - knowledge AO3 - evaluation
Self-disclosure Strength - Research support
Self-disclosure refers to the extent to which a person reveals intimate personal Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong
correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners:
information about themselves to another person. It is an important process in the men and women who used self-disclosure were more satisfied with their romantic
development of a romantic relationship. relationship. Sprecher (2013) also found that relationships are closer when partners take
turns to self-disclose, increasing the validity of the theory.
Social penetration theory However, most self-disclosure research is correlational. This means that self-disclosure might
Self-disclosure is a major concept in Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social not actually cause more satisfaction in a romantic relationship. Perhaps it is that satisfaction
penetration theory. It is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to allows partners to open up and self-disclose. It could also be that self-disclosure and
someone else. In romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of satisfaction are independent of each other and instead caused by a complete other variable.
increasingly sensitive information to increase trust and understanding.
Strength - Real-world application
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure Haas and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open
According to Altman and Taylor, self-disclosure has two elements - breadth and and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationship. If partners
learn to use self-disclosure it can deepen satisfaction and commitment. This means the
depth. In the early stages of a relationship, both of these elements are superficial. theory can help people who have relationship problems.
Breadth is narrow as lots of topics are “off-limits” may seem too forward. Depth is
also limited as only low-risk information is shared. As the relationship develops,
increasingly more intimate details will be disclosed e.g, painful memories. Weakness - Cultural differences
Nu Tang et al. (2013) reviewed research into self-disclosure about sexual practice. They
concluded that partners in the US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual
Reciprocity of self-disclosure thoughts than those in China (collectivist). This, however, did not affect levels of satisfaction in
Reis and Shaver (1988) point out that for a relationship to develop as well as an either. This theory is not so generalisable.
increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element. When a
person discloses highly personal information, it is in the hope that their partner
Weakness - Self-disclosure and breakdown
will respond with understanding but also with their own intimate thoughts and Social penetration theory suggests a positive correlation between satisfaction and self-
feelings. This balance increases intimacy and develops the relationship. disclosure however, theories such as Steve Duck’s, point out that partners often self-disclose
more often and deeply as their relationship deteriorates. It does not increase satisfaction and
is not enough to save the relationship.
Preferences
AO1 - knowledge AO3 - evaluation
Sexual selection - Darwin’s (1871) concept of sexual selection concerns Strength - Research support for inter-sexual selection
the selection of those characteristics that aid successful reproduction. Clark and Hatfield (1989) sent male and female psychology students out across a university
campus. They approaches other students with the question, “Would you go to bed with me
tonight?” The study found that not a single female student agreed to the request, whereas
Anisogamy 75% of males did, immediately. This supports the view that females are choosier than males.
This refers to the differences between male and female sex cells. Male gametes However, the argument that one strategy is used by all males and another by all females is
(sperm) are small, highly mobile and continually produced in vast numbers. simplistic. At the very least, it appears that strategies differ according to the length of the
Female gametes (eggs) are relatively large, static and finitely produced over a relationship. Sexual strategies theory (Buss and Schmitt 2016) argues that both males and
limited time. This is means that there is never a shortage of fertile males but a females adopt similar mating strategies when seeking long-term relationships i.e, both can be
fertile female is a much rarer ‘resource’, giving rise to two types of sexual very choosy and look for particular characteristics.
selection.
Strength - Research support for intra-sexual selection
Inter-sexual selection David Buss (1989) carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. He asked
This refers to the preferences of one sex (usually females) for members of the question relating to a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts are important in
opposite sex. Trivers (1972) pointed out that females make a greater investment partner preference. He found that females place higher value on resource-related
characteristics and male valued physical attractiveness and youth. This shows consistency
of commitment before, during and after the birth than males and thus, it pays for
across studies and across cultures.
her to be especially selective. For example, only choosing males with
characteristics that enable them to provide for her and her offspring. Fisher
(1930) developed a sexy sons hypothesis - the genes we see today are those Weakness - Ignores social and cultural influences
that enhanced reproductive success as females are likely to select males with Partner preferences over the past century have undoubtedly been influenced by rapidly
changing social norms of behaviour that develop much faster than evolutionary timescales
inherited ‘sexy’ traits that then become perpetuated. and instead come about by cultural factors e.g, the availability of contraception. Women have
greater roles in the workplace mean they are less dependent on men to provide. Bereczkei et
Intra-sexual selection al. (1997) argue that this social change has lead to a change in preferences for men, which
This refers to when members of one sex (usually males) compete with each other may no longer be resource-oriented. Evolutionary explanations are limited.
for access to members of the other sex. The victors are able to mate and so will
pass on their successful characteristics (e.g, being taller and stronger) and the Homosexuality
loser does not pass on their ‘losing’ characteristics. Given the minimal energy This theory does not explain the preferences of gay men and women, who are not likely to be
required for males to reproduce and lack of reproductive consequences, the assessing genetic fitness, although Lawson et al. (2014) found that in dating ads placed by
male’s optimum mating strategy is to compete in order to reproduce with as many straight and gay men and women, preferences were the same for both sexual orientations
fertile females as possible. relative to gender e.g, all women desired resource-oriented partners.
, Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-disclosure
AO1 - knowledge AO3 - evaluation
Self-disclosure Strength - Research support
Self-disclosure refers to the extent to which a person reveals intimate personal Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong
correlations between several measures of satisfaction and self-disclosure for both partners:
information about themselves to another person. It is an important process in the men and women who used self-disclosure were more satisfied with their romantic
development of a romantic relationship. relationship. Sprecher (2013) also found that relationships are closer when partners take
turns to self-disclose, increasing the validity of the theory.
Social penetration theory However, most self-disclosure research is correlational. This means that self-disclosure might
Self-disclosure is a major concept in Altman and Taylor’s (1973) social not actually cause more satisfaction in a romantic relationship. Perhaps it is that satisfaction
penetration theory. It is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to allows partners to open up and self-disclose. It could also be that self-disclosure and
someone else. In romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of satisfaction are independent of each other and instead caused by a complete other variable.
increasingly sensitive information to increase trust and understanding.
Strength - Real-world application
Breadth and depth of self-disclosure Haas and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open
According to Altman and Taylor, self-disclosure has two elements - breadth and and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationship. If partners
learn to use self-disclosure it can deepen satisfaction and commitment. This means the
depth. In the early stages of a relationship, both of these elements are superficial. theory can help people who have relationship problems.
Breadth is narrow as lots of topics are “off-limits” may seem too forward. Depth is
also limited as only low-risk information is shared. As the relationship develops,
increasingly more intimate details will be disclosed e.g, painful memories. Weakness - Cultural differences
Nu Tang et al. (2013) reviewed research into self-disclosure about sexual practice. They
concluded that partners in the US (individualist) self-disclose significantly more sexual
Reciprocity of self-disclosure thoughts than those in China (collectivist). This, however, did not affect levels of satisfaction in
Reis and Shaver (1988) point out that for a relationship to develop as well as an either. This theory is not so generalisable.
increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element. When a
person discloses highly personal information, it is in the hope that their partner
Weakness - Self-disclosure and breakdown
will respond with understanding but also with their own intimate thoughts and Social penetration theory suggests a positive correlation between satisfaction and self-
feelings. This balance increases intimacy and develops the relationship. disclosure however, theories such as Steve Duck’s, point out that partners often self-disclose
more often and deeply as their relationship deteriorates. It does not increase satisfaction and
is not enough to save the relationship.
