1 2 3 4 5
Evolutionary explanations Strength Limitation Strength Limitation Limitation
for partner preferences Research support Sexual selection differs Research support Social and cultural Homosexuality
Female choosiness According to length of Intra-sexual influences Homosexuals don’t have
Clark and Hatfield: male relationship Buss: 10,000 adults, 33 Changing norms faster reproduction as primary
and female psychology Simplistic countries questions on than evolutionary aim
students, uni campus, Buss and Schmidt: sexual attributes important in timescales imply Lawson et al.: ‘personal
‘would you to go to bed strategic theory, males partner preference Cultural e.g. availability of ads’ by homo and hetero
with me tonight?’. 0% and females similar in according to evolutionary contraception men and women –
females 75% males seeking long-term rel.s theory Women in workplace – no differed similarly e.g. men
agreed Choosy, look for good Females: resource-related longer need men to – physical attractiveness,
qualities in partners characteristics provide (though ongoing women – resources
Complex, nuanced, Males: physical inequality)
context of reproductive attractiveness, youth Bereckzei et al.: women
behaviour (good reproductive no longer resource-
capacity) oriented
Factors affecting Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation
attraction: self-disclosure Research support RWA Cultural differences Correlation vs causation Duck’s model contradicts
Sprecher and Hendrick: Haas and Stafford: 57% Tang et al. – sexual S-D Often correlational Non-disclosure =
hetero couples homo men and women more in individualist US Causation assumed but relationship breakdown,
Correlation: S-D and said open S-D was main less in collectivist China may not be dissatisfying
satisfaction/commitment way they Satisfaction levels same More satisfied partners Duck: S-D more often and
Sprecher et al. – maintained/deepened Limited – based on are, more they disclose deep as relationship
relationships closer and relationships findings from W (individ.) May be independent and deteriorates – does not
more satisfying when less-skilled could learn --> cultures – generalisability caused by third variable increase satisfaction, not
partners take turns to S-D satisfaction and e.g. time spent together enough to save rel.
commitment
can help w struggling rel.s
Factors affecting Strength Strength Strength Limitation Limitation
attraction: physical Research support Research support for RS for halo effect Contradicting research Individual differences
attractiveness Palmer and Peterson: evolutionary ex. Rosenthal and Jacobson: Matching hypothesis Some don’t attach much
physically attractive rated Cunningham et al.: Objective info on Taylor et al.: activity logs, importance to
politically knowledgeable female features large academic potential, photo online dating site attractiveness
and competent eyes, prominent Teachers’ expectations of Real world – actual date Touhey: sexist attitudes of
Even when ppts knew cheekbones, small noses, child’s academic future choices, not just men and women (MACHO
they had no expertise high eyebrows rated associated with preferences scale)
Politics – democracy, highly attractive by white, attractiveness Sought meetings with Low scorers relatively
politicians suitable for Hispanic, Asian males potential partners more unaffected by physical
, office if attractive Sign of genetic fitness – physically attractive than attractiveness when
so similar in all them judging likeability of
potential partners
Factors affecting Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation Strength
attraction: filter theory Research support Problems with Actual vs perceived Social change Research support for
Kerckhoff and Davis: complementarity similarity Filters changed over time similarity
longitudinal, May not be essential to Montoya et al.: meta- Social demography: Gruber-Baldini et al.:
questionnaire on all longer-term analysis of 313 studies – online dating and apps sharing similarities e.g.
similarity of Markey and Markey: similarity only important have increase the field of education = more likely to
attitudes/values + lesbian couples of equal in short-term lab-based available – physical be together after 20 years
complementarity of dominance most satisfied interactions appearance imp., location Taylor et al.: US couples
attitudes Couples involved for avg RW: perceived similarity less married in 2008, 85%
‘Closeness’ measured 7 4.5 years more Imp. 60s: interracial married people in the
months later Similarity of needs May perceive more relationships uncommon same ethnic group as
Associated with similarity instead similarities as they 2008: 15% marriages them
of values but only for become more attracted from that year interracial
those together less than
18 months
Longer rel.s:
complementarity
predicted closeness
Theories of romantic Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation
relationships: Social Research support RWA Direction of cause and Vague concepts Inappropriate central
Exchange Theory Kurdek: gay, lesbian, Integrated behavioural effect Rewards and costs assumptions
hetero couples couples’ therapy Argyle: don’t monitor defined superficially in SET: economic
questionnaires on More positive, less costs and research to measure Clark and Mills: cannot
commitment and SET negative exchanges in rewards/consider Subjective, hard to define apply this to romantic
Most committed = those daily interactions, change alternatives until and test rel.s as they are
w most rewards + fewest negative behaviour dissatisfaction occurs Unclear what values of CL communal-based – do not
costs, saw alternatives as patterns When satisfied and and CLalt before keep score as this would
relatively unattractive Christensen et al.: 2/3 committed, don’t notice dissatisfaction threatens undermine trust of close
First to show SET couples treated rel.s poss. Attractive rel. emotional rel.
concepts as individual improved, happier alternatives
BUT Considering costs/alt.s
Studies into SET ignore caused by dissatisfaction
equity – much research
for perceptions of
fairness
