Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
:hearts:Relationships:hearts:, Reproductive success is the basis of the…
-
Reproductive success is the basis of the evolutionary process
- Among early humans, and for us today, those who failed to mate, failed to pass on their genes
- For those who did, the process involves selecting the right mate by out-competing rivals, mating at a time which would survive long enough to pass on its genes too
- As modern-day humans also have a repertoire of psychological behaviour which give the best possible chance for our genes to be passed on
Nature of sexual selection
- In most sexually reproducing species the meals are much more brightly coloured than the females
- Charles Darwin (1874) came up with theory of sexual selection and the two processes through which it takes place
- Members of one sex (usually males) compete w/ each other for access to members of the opp. sex
- The winners mate and so pass on their genes but losers don't
- So whatever traits lead to successful mating in these contests = passed onto next gen
- Involves the preferences of one sex for certain traits in the opp sex
- E.g. if females prefer tall males over time there would be an increase in the number of tall males in the pop
- So therefore the preferences of one sex determine the areas in which the opp sex must compete
- This could be plumage in peacocks and economic resources in humans
- So these indicators become signals to the opp sex that they have 'good genes' likely to
a) produce successful offspring
b) To be able to give protection and support to offspring
- Men appear to have a number of evolutionary strategies w/ regards to sex, one of which has evolves for short term mating success and is based on the Parental Investment Theory
- The idea is that because men are competing for quantity of females in order to pass on more copies of their genes than a less successful rival, they would want to have sex earlier in a relationship
- Women however, are not under this evolutionary pressure as no matter how many men they have sex w/ there can only be one pregnancy at a time
Female Reproductivity:
- Few large eggs, fertile for about 25 yrs w/ 300 opps to reproduce
- Therefore females must be more selective about who they mate with as each mating involves a sizeable part of reproduction potential compared w/ males
Male Reproductivity:
- 110 million sperm per ejaculation and can fertilise as many females as little cost to reproductive potential
- Physical attractiveness in females is valued by males as an indicator of health and fertility = 2 of the qualities needed to produce and raise children
- Younger women = seen as more attractive as tend to be more fertile
- Females more attracted to older men = have access to a resources as this indicates an ability to provide for a female and her children
- Females = choosier in selecting mates = greater investment, also attracted to kindness = willingness to share resources
- Indicate genetic fitness, w/ males and females possessing perfect body symmetry having 2-3 times as many sexual partners than asymmetrical bodies
- Females w/ larger waist 2 hip ratio associated w/ greater reproductive abilities
Male Strategies: CSSMS
- Courtship rituals: Allows males to display genetic potential
- Size: Males evolved to be bigger, demonstrated strength for success in comp against other males
- Sperm comp: Natural selection acted on males, making them more comp by producing larger testicles, bigger ejaculations and faster-swimming sperm
- Mate guarding: Males fear being cuckolded and spending resources raising another male's child therefore indulge in mate guarding. Bus (1993) believes while men worry about sexual unfaithfulness, women worry about emotional faithfulness = spending resources on other women
- Sneak copulation: Males mate with w/ females aside from partners = increases chances of reproductive success. Women gain as diff fathers = wider genetic diversity and adaptive advantage by getting preg by sneaky copulation but in rship with resource rich man
Female Strategies: SHC
- Sexy sons hypothesis: Females select attractive males as they will produce sons w. the same attractive features
- Handicap hypothesis: Zahavi (1975) believes females select males w/ handicaps as it advertises ability to thrive despite handicaps, demonstrating superior genetic quality = may explain why females find males who drink or do drugs attractive = ability to handle toxins and sign of genetic fitness
- Courtship: To select males on the basis of reproductive fitness; strength, health and ability to provide resources and increase chances of males not deserting
Research:
- Clarke and Hatfield (1989)
- Approached students on campus asking,
= date? F 50% M 50%
= Apartment? F 6% M 69%
= Sex? F 0% M 75%
- Results replicated in other studies and suggest men have psychological mechanisms to ensure ST mating
a) Desire for sexual variety
b) Tendency to let time elapse before seeking sex
c) Willingness to consent to sex w/ strangers
- Buss (1989)
- Tested participants from 37 cultures, finding that males prefer young, physically attractive females, while females prefer resource-rich, ambitious, industrious males, supporting the idea that gender based ideas of attractiveness are biological in nature
- Singh (1993)
- Used data from 50 yrs of beauty contests winner and playboy centrefolds to assess waist-to-hip ratios of attractive women
- Found small waist-to-full hip ratio = consistent feature of female attractiveness, while breast size, overall body weight and physique varied over the years
- Suggesting that waist-to-hip-ratio is an indicator of reproductive ability
- :check: Females often alter appearance through makeup and cosmetic surgery adn lie about their age to appear more fertile and younger. Males use deceit to exaggerate their resource capabilities and feign love to persuade females to mate = supports idea males and females using diff strategies to max. reproductive potential
- :red_cross: Presumes hetrosexuality and that all rships are sexual = oversimplified. Cannot explain distance romantic rships e.g. internet. Cannot explain couples choosing to have children as assumes all rships are motivated by desire to reproduce
- :red_cross: Women don't need men the way they once did and as predicted by evolutionary theory. In western culture, have greater financial security and employment opps which has occurred simultaneously w. a rise in single women having children
= office of National Stats = 82000 single women of British fams = single parent (90% female led)
Stats not consistent with women needing men
- :red_cross: Unreliable: = much early evidence from children born from sneak copulations is based on qnnaires and blood samples. Estimates also vary widely = may be due to culture differences or to types of samples used e.g. using DNA data where males had suspicions of using DNA data where males had suspicions of non-paternity = more likely to find evidence
"What is beautiful is good" principle
- The Halo Effect refers to the habitual tendency of ppl to rate attractive ppl more favourably for their personality traits or characteristics than those less attractive
- Halo effect is also used in more general sense to describe the global impact of likeable personality in creating judgements of the target person on any dimension
- This feelings generally overcome cognitions when wer appraise others
- Murstein (1972) Studies 99 couples and compared w. randomly paired couples. Found real couples consistently rated as more alike in levels of attractiveness
Hypothesis 1: Attractive ppl expect an attractive partner
Hypothesis 2: Couples who are equally matched are happier
- Murstein (1972) individuals attraction towards another person in the early stages of a relationship depends on available cues that indicate 'social desirability'
- Physical attractiveness = the major determinant as it's an accessible way for each person to rate one another
- Initial attraction should be determined by the comparison between the attractiveness level of the target individual and the person's own lvl of attractiveness
- 752 students bought welcome week tickets for a computer dance that they would be provided with an 'ideal match' date but they were randomly assigned
- Unseen observer marked them on attractiveness
- After spending two hours w/ their dates students were asked how much they liked their partners
- Those physically attractive liked the most
- :check: Face Validity: Importance of sociodemographic factors, similarity of attitudes and complementarity in developing attraction = experienced in day-to-day life therefore ppl can relate w/ intuitive understanding = greater confidence in the theory gives ppl
- :red_cross: Participants = individualistic western culture: Individualist culture = value free choice; criteria described applied freely w/out influence from others in collectivist cultures, rships arranged = cannot apply individual filters = culture bias: assumes rules of partner choice apply universally
- :red_cross: Short-term relationships: Mainly applies to ST as when choosing LT partners ppl tend to focus on similarity of values and needs rather than attractiveness qs validity= describes limited no. of relationships and ignores that ppl compensate for lack of. attractiveness w. intellect and older less attractive men married to young woman = cannot explain
- Filter one: Demographic (D) - Refers to social demographic i.e. live in the same area, education and similar social class
- Revolves around the fact that we only meet a v small fraction of ppl living in our area (proximity filter)
- Filter two: Attitudes (A)
- Similarity of attitudes and values = share ideas, beliefs, easy communication
- Most of those we meet tend to be of a similar social class education level and maybe even the same ethnicity or racial group
- Filter three: Needs (N)
- Complementary of emotional needs = rship established and how well they fit together as a couple and meet each others needs
- Based on psychological (internal) factors. The chances of a short term rship becoming more permanent depends most on shared beliefs and values and personality values
- :book: Festinger et al (1950)
- Reported that people who lived the closest to the stairways in an apartment block had the most contact with other residents of the block and formed the most friendships w/ other residents, supporting the idea of social demographic variables affecting the choice of possible partners one could be attracted to
- Supported by Clark (1952) who found 50% of Ohio citizens were married to who initially lived w/in walking distance of their house
- :book: Taylor et al (2010)
- Reported that 85% of Americans who got married in 2008 married someone of their own ethnic group, supporting the social demographic ideal that individuals choice of partners is limited to those of a similar background
- :red_cross: Less relevant: Some stages seen as, modern society = more multi-cultural and interconnected by internet than in 1960s = we may now see social demography as less of a barrier to a relationship - lacks temporal validity
- :red_cross: Accurate conclusions diff to reach Much research focuses on liking and relationships in general, rather than specifically on attraction and romantic relationships
- :red_cross: Cultural Bias: Males and females filter out diff things due to having diff needs. This applies to age and culture too. Indeed filter theory can be accused of cultural bias as most research was performed in individualistic cultures and therefore may not apply to collectivist cultures where relationships may be affected by diff limiting factors
- Suggest self-disclosure (telling intimate info) influences attraction in 3 ways
- Effect one: Those who engage in intimate disclosures are generally liked more than those who don't
- Effect two: People disclose more to those they like in the first place
- Effect three: The act of self-disclosure makes us like the person we are speaking to
- Works best when reciprocal
- 1) Appropriateness of disclosure: Sometimes disclosing = inappropriateness e.g. on the first date more attractive ppl will be sensitive to societal norms
- 2) Attributions of the disclosure: Less attraction occurs if an individual is seen as the kind of person disclosing info to everyone. More attraction occurs if we believe individual sees us as someone they want to disclose intimate info to
- 3) Gender diff: Women = better communicators of and more interested in intimate info. Males may be seen as less appropriate than those by females. Alternatively, SD by man may be seen as v rewarding by a female
- 4) Content of the disclosure: If rship in early stages disclosure of v intimate info = inappropriate and violating social norms = decreasing attraction
- :book: Sprecher et al (2013)
- Looked at effects of SD reciprocity vs non-reciprocity on liking in initial encounters
- One condition Ps took turn answering and asking qs
- Second condition Ps either disclosed or listened in an initial interaction
- Ps who disclosed reciprocally = greater liking and closeness and enjoyment of interaction than non-reciprocally
- Concluded turn-taking SD reciprocity in acquaintance process increases likelihood of positive outcomes
- :book: Derlega and Chaikin (1976)
- Reported men who disclosed personal info violated social expectations in doing so and so judged unfavourably
- However, Dindia and Allen (1992) performed meta-analysis to find females, more than males, regarded intimate disclosure as development of closeness = judged men doing so favourably
- :book: Kito (2010)
- Assessed how SD affected diff types of Rships in Japanese and American students = SD higher in both cultural groups in romantic rships than in same-sex and cross-sex friendship rships
- Self disclosure = important factor in romantic rships and is a cross-cultural effect
- :red_cross: Much of the research = correlational causal rship cannot be determined = may be that attraction btwn partners leads to greater SD
= rather than the sharing of info which leads to greater intimacy
- :red_cross: Doesn't distinguish between communal and romantic rships dif to determine it's role solely in romantic rships. Also research doesn't distinguish btwn diff types e.g. rships high in passion/intimacy/commitment...
= May be that SD makes ppl more attractive in rships high in intimacy
- Used to explain maintenance of rships (can also explain formation and breakdown)
- Homans argues that we monitor our rships by looking at the exchange between the rewards and the costs
- We do this by looking at the ratio of outcome w/ the rship - profits vs losses - rship is dependent on the profitability of this outcome
- Explains rships in terms of maximising benefits and minimising costs
- Suggesting ppl are selfish w/in rships
- Expanded on SET to view rships like a business transaction - individuals must regularly check their 'balance sheet' and compare it with previous rships
- Individuals assesses rewards by making two comparisons
- 1) Comparison level (CL): A standard against which all our rships are judged. We compare rships w/ what we expect from a rship on basis of our previous experience, our view or what we expect from a rship on basis of our previous experiences = our view of what rship should be like and what we expect to gain from them
- 2) Comparison level alternative (CLalt): Make comparisons with alt rships may offer
= if both partners feel benefits outweigh costs, rship is maintained
- Stage one: Sampling: We consider the potential rewards and costs of a rship and compare it with other rships available at the time
- Stage two: Bargaining: Rship costed out and sources of profit and loss identified. We give and receive rewards to test whether a deeper rship is worthwhile
- Stage three: Commitment: The rship increases in predictability so each partner knows to elicit rewards from the other, which lowers cost
- Stage four: Institutionalisation: The rship norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner and couple settled down
- :book: Rusbult (1983)
- PP complete questionnaire over 7 mnths concerning rewards and costs associated w. rships
- Found SET didn't explain early 'honeymoon' phase of rships, the balance of exchanges is ignored but later on costs are compared to personal satisfaction = so relevant to maintenance of rship
- We can conclude that the cost and reward compared to cost and rewards of potential alternative rships is used to decide if it should be maintained - supporting SET
- :book: Hatfield (1979)
- Looked at ppl who felt over/under benefited
- Found that under-benefited individuals felt angry and deprived and over-benefitted felt guilt = supports SET
- But suggests regardless of whether individuals are benefitted they may not desire to mantain a rship
- :check: Real world application: SET is used in Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy where couples are taught how to increase the proportion of (+) exchanges and decrease (-) exchanges = high mundane realism in terms of the theory therefore SET = v. beneficial at improving real rships
- :red_cross: Fails to distinguish between two types of rships: Researchers suggest exchange rships e.g. collegues do involve SE as SET suggests but communal (romantic) rships = characterised by giving and receiving w/out and keeping score. If we felt the kind of exchange monitoring SET predicts = qs what kind of commitment our partner would want
- :red_cross: Difficult to quantify: Rewards and costs defined superficially to measure them but psychological rewards and costs = diff to define esp as they vary between ppl. Comparison levels = problematic as unclear what values of CL and CLalt must be before dissatisfaction threatens a ship
- Walster (1978) suggests that the most successful rship are those where lvls of giving and receiving are balanced - rships should run in a fair way
- Equity is not equality = what is fair in a rship in terms of input/output is a subjective opinion for each partner
Consequences
- Couples keep an eye on what putting in and getting out
- Inequity leads to problems (loser=dissatisfied, winner = guilty)
- Short terms rships end
- Long term rships motivated to repair them by: reducing inputs/increasing outputs
- Hatfield argues the most reliable way of calc dating and marital equity is to simply ask men and women directly how fair their rship is
- Individuals asked to consider what they put into their dating rship/marriage compared to what they get out of it
- Also what partner puts in compared to what they get out of it
- Scale: +3 to -3 = 'I am getting a much better deal than they are' to 'my partner is...' w/ 0 being we are both getting a good deal
- Distribution: Trade offs and compensation negotiated to achieve fairness in rship e.g. one cooks one cleans
- Dissatisfaction Greater perceived inequity, greater dissatisfaction e.g. benefits feels guilty, under-benefits=angry
- Realignment: More unfair rship feels harder partner works to restore equity. May revise perceptions of rewards and costs e.g. what once considered cost (abuse/infidelity) accepted as norm
- :check: Research Support: De Marris (2007) study on 1500 couples in USA assessed importance of equity in relation to marital dissatisfaction. Found women's sense of being under-benefited - most important in a rship breakup = implies equity is more important for women
- :red_cross: Culture differences: Some cultures have traditions and expectations that one member should benefit more from the partnership. Traditional nuclear family in early mid C20 = patriarchal. Women - housework and raise children whilst men provide for others
- :red_cross: Not all are concerned with equity: Some are less sensitive to equity than others. Some partners = 'benevolents' prepared to contribute more than getting out of it. Others are 'entitleds' believe deserve to be over benefitted and accept w/out guilt or distress
Rusbult (1983)
- Was interested in studying the factors that contributed to a committed relationship vs rship breakdown
- 3 concepts:
- Satisfaction: If outcomes surpass CL individuals are satisfied
- Quality of alternatives: We may continue a better rship as they are no better options/ if needs met elsewhere = high
- Investment: Anything an individual put into a rship that will be lost if they leave it
Investment size:
- Suggested that CL and CLalt from SET = not enough to explain commitment to a rship
- Found when ppl were deciding whether to end a rship they weighed up rewards and costs and poss alternatives but also considered how much they had invested
- Defines investment as 'anything a person puts into a rship that will be lost if they leave it
- Investments can be financial (house), temporal (e.g. time) or emotional (welfare of children)
- Investments can thus has a 'sunk cost' effect where a person stays in a rship as they have invested heavily
Commitment:
- Equity: Degree of 'fairness' w/in a rship. Inequity leads to stress and lack of satisfaction therefore lack of commitment
- Social Support: Degree of care and assistance available from others e.g. fam and friends. If others approve = positive influence that increases commitment to a rship
- :book: Rusbult et al (1998)
- IMS qnnaire (Investment Model Scale) to student participants in rships find that commitment in rships = positively correlated w/ satisfaction level, negatively correlated with quality of alternatives and positively correlated w. investment size
- Supports all 3 factors in the model
- :check: Explaining abusive rships: Rusbult and Martz (1995) asked women in refuges why they stayed and reported they felt the greatest commitment to their rship when they felt their economic alternatives were poor and investments high - as predicted by the model
- :red_cross: Methodology: Much evidence supporting = relies on self-report measures. May be subject to social desirability and idealised answers and researcher bias = causes doubts on validity
= however, can be seen as most appropriate method as it is not the objective reality of factors that matter
- :red_cross: Based on correlational research: Strong correlations have been found btwn all important factors. However, even strongest correlation = no evidence of causation = cannot conclude any of the factors actually cause commitment
- It could be the more committed you feel the more investment willing to make = direction of causality may be reverse of that predicted by model
- Commitemnet due to investment of investment due to commitment
- Suggested 3 main reasons why relationships break down
1) Pre-existing doom = Incompatible from the start
2) Mechanical failure = People just grow apart - most common
3) Sudden death = The discovery of infidelity or a traumatic incident e.g. a massive argument
- Lack of skills: Duck (1991) Individuals lacking in social skills may be poor at conversation, poor at indicating interest in other person and unrewarding in their interactions
- Others may perceive them as not being interested in relating, so the rship breaks down before it gets going
- Lack of stimulation: Baxter (1994) according to SET we look for rewards in our rships
- Lack of stimulation such as boredom/belief that rship is not going anywhere is quoted when rship breaks down
- people expect rship to change and develop and when they don't, justifies end and begin new one (i.e. have an affair)
- Maintenance difficulties: Shaver et al (1995) rship may become strained if partners cannot see each other enough e.g. going to uni
- While enduring romantic rships can be strong enough to survive the pressure of decreased daily contact, it is evident that this is not the case for many
- :check: Extramarital affairs: Boekhout et al (1999) argued that direct reaction to perceived lack of skills or stimulation in current rships = undergrads asked to rate various sexual and emotional reasons for men and women to be unfaithful in a committed rship. Men judged sexual reasons as reasons for infidelity, women = lack of attention, commitment and emotional satisfaction - infidelity
- :red_cross: Maintenance difficulties: Rohlfing (1995) found that LDRR and LDF = more common. Found 90% students experienced LDF and 70% LDRR. Moreover, we live in a mobile city so we can reunite
- :red_cross: Gender differences Brehm and Kassin (1996) Women more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men upset by sexual withholding Akert (1998) women desire to stay friends men do not!
- Describes the stages which ppl go through when they realise that they are unhappy in their rship and outlines how they terminate their relationship
- Dissatisfaction w/ the rship but nothing is said
- Depict and evaluate (-) aspects of the rship
- Confront partner and discuss feelings and the future
- May undergo couple counselling. If issue is not resolved - go to next stage
- Rship problems = aired out openly as couple start to tell fam and friends bout difficulties
- Friends may offer support or take sides
- Attempts to justify actions
- Both parties try to get their side of the break-up story across to ppl as they will want to be seen as trustworthy and loyal, key attributes for future rships
- :check: Implications for intervention: Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in the rship breakdown. Paying attention to things ppl say, topic they discuss and way they talk bout their rship indicates what stage they are at and the most appropriate intervention for that stage
- :check: Research support: Tashiro and Frazier (2003) surveyed undergrads recently broken up and reported emotional distress and personal growth. Reported breaking up gave them a new insight int themselves and a clearer idea of future partners.
= Through grave-dressing, and resurrection processes they could put o.g. relationship to rest and move on
- :red_cross: Ethical issues: Vul: Ps may experience distress when revisiting issues that lead to the breakdown. Privacy: Many issues surrounding rship are of a personal and intimate nature. Confidentiality: The further distribution and use of info given
- :red_cross: The social phase is greatly affected by individual differences, especially in relation to age. Dickson (1995) found that while friends and relatives tend to see teenagers' break-ups as less serious and wouldn't put much effort into reconciling partners, the ending of relationships by older couples is seen as more distressing and those close to the couple put more effort into bringing them back together. This shows that Duck's model won't necessarily apply to all couples, and therefore suggests that the model is unable to accurately predict breakdown in different types of relationship
- :red_cross: Culturally Bias: Reflective of individualist cultures and therefore does not account for other cultures where the relationship is arranged by other family members and therefore has a larger family involvement, Therefore the break-up process would be different from culture to culture where break-ups are easier, to where they are stigmatized and harder to do.
- When we speak face to face with someone, it's not just our words which communicate our meaning
- Non verbal paralang may be more important that the words themselves e.g. body posture, eye gaze, may express liking even if the verbal comm doesn't
- On the phone, there are still paralang signals such as pauses and tone of voice which can communicate intention
- However, all non- verbal comm is lost on the internet; meaning is dependent only upon words and nothing else
- Psychologists have long known that SD = important feature of F2F rships in the offline world
- In recent years psychologists are focussing on how SD features in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) relationships
- 2 major and contrasting theories...
-