Summary
RELATIONSHIPS AQA SUMMARY NOTES
- Module
- A level Psychology
- Institution
- A Level Psychology
Covering all A01, A02 and A03 that could possibly come up in your exams! Relationships
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences Factors affecting attraction: self-disclosure Factors affecting affection: Physical attractiveness Factors affecting affection: Filter theoryNatural selection: survival of the fittest where those with the Self-disclosure: refers to revealing intimate information to Symmetry: Shackelford and Larsen (1997) found that people Availabilities and desirables: Kerckhoff and Davis explain
most physical advantageous traits will survive in their another person. For example, revealing likes and dislikes, with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive. It is attraction in terms of attitudes and personalities.
environment the longest. The ones with the most mating hopes and fears, interests and attitudes. We share what really thought that this is a signal of genetic fitness that cannot be 1. First we consider the field of available (pool of potential
potential is the most likely to pass their genes down. matters to us. Most people are careful about disclosing too faked (an honest fitness indicator). Explanations based on partners who are accessible to us)
much. Self-disclosure plays an important role in developing a physical attractiveness are evolutionary ones – attributes that 2. From this we select the field of desirables via three filters
relationship beyond initial attraction. signal high quality are naturally selected. of varying importance at different stages of a relationship.
Sexual selection: proposed by Charles Darwin. Male
characteristics enhance reproductive success and it becomes
established as a preference among females (pressure among Social penetration theory: Altman and Taylor suggest it is a Baby faces: neotenous features are thought to trigger 1st filter – social demography: Factors that influence chances
females). Sexy sons hypothesis gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone. protective and caring instincts, related to the formation of of meeting eg chances of meeting eg age and education.
Revealing personal information is a sign of trust, and the attachment in infancy. This is also an evolutionary explanation Demographics are features that describe populations. Social
partner then has to reciprocate and reveal their personal because features that strengthen attachment are naturally demographics include geographical location and social class.
Anisogamy: refers to the difference between male and female information. selected. You are more likely to meet and have meaningful encounters
sex cells. Male cells (sperm) are plentiful because they are with people who are physically closer and share other
relatively cheap whereas female cells (ova) are expensive features with yourself eg same social class. Anyone who is too
because they require more energy to produce them. Penetration: as romantic partners increasingly disclose more Halo effect: describes how physical attractiveness is different eg too far away is not a potential partner and is
Consequences of anisogamy’s is that there are plenty of information they penetrate more deeply into each other’s generalised. We hold preconceived ideas about the attributes filtered out before the next stage – outcome is homogamy
fertile males but fertile females are a rarer source, creating lives. of physically attractive people. We believe that all their other (partner is similar to you and shares your background). These
two different mating strategies – inter-sexual and intra-sexual. Depenetration: describes how dissatisfied partners self- attributes are overwhelmingly positive. Physically, attractive similarities are found attractive, give reassurance that
disclose less as they disengage from the relationship. people are rated as kind, sociable and successful compared to relationship will move forward.
unattracted people. Good looking people will have such such
Inter-sexual selection: selection of mates between sexes characteristics making them more attractive = self-fulfilling
(females select males and males select females) Breadth: both breadth and depth of self-disclosure are key prophecy. 2nd filter – similarity in attitudes: Sharing beliefs and value is
Female strategy: females make a greater investment of time, according to the social penetration theory – layers of onion important for couples who have been together less than 18
commitment before, during and after birth. (Trivers) metaphor. Breadth is narrow at the start of a relationship months eg views of career and importance of family. In early
Therefore, the female’s optimum mating strategy is to select a because if too much information is revealed this may be off- Matching hypothesis: people want the best partner possible, stages of a relationship, agreeing on basic values promotes
genetically-fit partner who is able to provide resources. putting and one partner may decide to quit the relationship. but not that one will reject them. The more socially desirable better communication and self-disclosure. Byrne found that
Impact on partner preference: Preferences of both sexes a person is, the more desirable they expect their partner to similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction. Where such
determine attributes that are passed on eg if height is be. If they are matched in social desirability, they are more similarity does not exist, it is found that often the relationship
considered an attractive male trait, it increases in the male Depth: As a relationship develops more layers are gradually likely to be in a happy relationship. fades after only a few dates.
population over generations because females choose the revealed. We are more likely to reveal more intimate
tallest males – the trait becomes exaggerated. information including painful memories, secrets, etc.
Walster 1966: 3rd filter – complementarity: Partners complement each other
1. More socially desirable a person is the more desirable they when they have traits that the other person lacks. For
Intra-sexual selection: selection of mates within sexes (males Reciprocity: Reis and Shaver suggest that in, in addition to a would expect a dating or marriage partner to be. example, one partner may enjoy making the other laugh, and
compete with other males for mates) broadening and deepening of self-disclosure, there must be 2. The individual would most often chose to date a partner of in turn this partner enjoys being made to laugh.
Male strategy: males compete for access to females as sperm reciprocity. Successful relationships will involve disclosure approximately their own attractiveness Complementarity is important in longer term stages of
is plentiful but fertile females are a limited resource and are from one partner which is received sensitively by the other + may be influenced by realistic choices relationships as it gives romantic partners a feeling of
choosy. Males who win pass on their genes to the next partner. Should lead to further self-disclosure from the other + the desirability of potential matches togetherness and making a whole.
generation so the traits that contributed to their victory eg partner. + the probability of someone saying yes
height are perpetuated. Procedure: Computer dance – students rated on physical
Impact on partner preference: Physical consequences – males attractiveness by objective observers and completed
who are bigger win competitions for mates, so size is selected Factors involved in self-disclosure: questionnaires. Told questionnaire data used to pair partners,
in males. Signs of fertility are selected eg narrow waist in - appropriateness of the disclosure but in fact randomly paired with partners.
humans indicate youthfulness. Behavioural consequences – - attributions for the disclosure Findings and conclusions: Physically attractive partners were
male aggressiveness also helps win competitions. - gender differences liked the most and more likely to be asked on another date –
- context of the disclosure hypothesis not supported. But Berschied et al replicated
study and students selected partners themselves. This time
Importance of cross cultural research: if similar findings, they chose partners of similar physical attractiveness. This
patterns or trends are found in differences areas of the world Appropriateness: sometimes disclosing information is
suggests we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical
it suggests universality in nature as innate and natural. If deemed inappropriate. Less attraction occurs if an individual
attractiveness matches our own. Partner choice is a
there are differences in behaviour from one place to another is seen as the type who discloses personal information to
compromise – we avoid rejection by the most physically
it supports the influence of culture on behaviour. everyone or the situation is not appropriate. More attraction
attractive and settle for those in our own league.
if a person sees someone as someone they want to disclose
too.
Fitness indicators: anything about, not verbally suggests
, prescence of good genes, survival skills or parenting potential.
Fitness indicators can be faked. An honest fitness indicator is
facial symmetry which is physiologically difficult to fake. Waist Gender differences: Women are seen as better
to hip ratio (WHR) in females is another. communicators of and more interested in intimacy. Men are
not as good at communicating therefore threatened by self-
disclosing intimate details. Self-disclosure by a male may be
Consequences of sexual selection: seen as very rewarding by a female, especially because he
1. Sexual dimorphism – physical differences between sexes. wants to disclose personal information.
Males are generally larger because it is suggested humans However, disclosure of highly intimate information may be
evolved in a polygynous mating system (1M:MF). Therefore, seen as inappropriate and violating social norms. This can
there is increased sexual competition. The bigger the males decrease attraction and attraction may be seen as stronger
the better they are at competing. when self-disclosure is of modern intimacy.
2. Facial characteristics - females with neotenous (childlike
features eg large eyes, small noses) are seen as universally
more attractive. It also shows fertility. Men with strong jaws
and large noses, influenced by testosterone, are also seen
more universally attractive. However, testosterone weakens
the immune system. Bruce and Young – found a preference
for symmetrical faces, that are free from harmful mutations.
3. Body shape – Singh found a preference for a waist to hip
ratio of 0.7, an hourglass body shape. Preference persists a
figure being curvier or slimmer.
Mating strategies:
Monogamy = mates with one partner
Polygyny = one man with multiple men
Polyandry = one women with multiple men
Promiscuity = both partners with multiple partners
Handicap hypothesis, Zahavi 1975: certain characteristics
seem maladaptive, the fact the owners present them is still
alive and healthy indicates good survival skills. Allows them to
overcome certain potential handicap and exaggerated
features are a type of fitness indicator.
Partner preferences: Dunbar used 900 personal ads from
North American newspapers. 42% of men wanted a younger
partner. 25% of women wanted a younger partner. 44% of
men sought a physically attractive woman. 22% of women
sought after a physically attractive man.
+ Support for inter-sexual selection: In Clark and Hatfield, + Support from research studies: Sprecher and Hendrick + Research to support the halo effect: Palmer and Peterson + Support from Kerckhoff and Davis’s original study: Dating
students asked other students: ‘I have been noticing you found strong correlations between several measures of found that physically attractive people were rated more couples completed questionnaires to measure similarity of
around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you like to satisfaction and self-disclosure in heterosexual couples. Men politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive attitudes/values, complementarity of needs and relationship
go to bed with me tonight?’. No female students agreed in and women who used self-disclosure and believed their people. This halo effect persisted even when told the closeness. Closeness was linked to similarity of values only for
response to requests from males. But 75% of males agreed partner also disclosed, were also more satisfied with and knowledgeable people actually had no expertise. This partners together less than 18 months. Complementarity of
with females requests. This supports the view that females committed to their romantic relationship. This supports the suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just needs was more important in longer relationships. This is
are choosier than males in partner preferences and that validity of the view that reciprocated self-disclosure is a key because they are considered physically attractive by enough evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a
males have evolved a different strategy to ensure part of a satisfying romantic relationships. voters. relationship, but complementarity becomes more important
reproductive success. CA: Sprecher and Hendrick found strong positive correlations later.
CA: Buss and Schmitt claim sexual selection theory is but this does not mean that self-disclosure causes CA: Original findings not replicated (Levinger), perhaps due to
simplistic because it suggests that one strategy is adaptive for relationships to be satisfying. It may be that satisfied partners + Research to support evolutionary process: Cunningham et al social changes and assumption that partners together more
all males and another is adaptive for all females. Instead, both disclose more, or both caused by time spent together. This found large eyes and small noses in females were rated as than 18 months must be more committed. This assumption is
have similar preferences when seeking long-term suggests that self-disclosures may not cause satisfactions attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic. What is considered questionable, so filter theory is based on research evidence
relationships eg loyalty and love. This is a more complex and directly, which reduces the validity of social penetration physically attractive is consistent across cultures – attractive that lacks validity.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Astarpsychstudent. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
84866 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now