Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Relationships - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Males - Males’ sex cells (sperm) is produced in large quantities, quickly replenished and created continuously from puberty to old age. Before the invention of DNA testing, males could never be sure that a particular child is theirs, so the reproductively successful strategy for a male would involve having sex with, and impregnating, as many women as possible..Therefore males compete with each other to gain access to females
        
        Grammar & Thornhill (1994) - females are attracted to males with masculine characteristics
        
        Large jaw
        
        Prominent cheekbones
        
        These features arise as a result of testosterone, which is also a handicap because it suppresses the immune system
        
        So only ‘healthy’ individuals can afford to produce these traits- advertising a strong immune system
        
        The faces people find attractive are surprisingly consistent – even across cultures
        Langlois et al. (1987) babies under 1 yr prefer to look at attractive faces
        
        all men were found to prefer younger partners, averaged across 37 cultures – 2.5 years younger. In general males rate younger women as more attractive than older women
        
        the degree of fat preferred by men seems to be subject to change yet the preference for a particular hip-to-waist (WHR) ratio remains constant.
        
        US research suggests men prefer women with lower WHRs
        
        Body symmetry is also attractive for males and females
        Singh (1993) waist-to-hip ratio is a reliable predictor of attractiveness
        
        WHR associated with greater reproductive capability
        
        Singh (1993) studied Playboy centrefolds and found a 0.7 WHR was most attractive
        
        this was not supported across cultures
      - Females - The energetically expensive process of producing an egg and then carrying a child in the womb for nine months would mean that she needs a partner who will be committed to the relationship in the long run and provide resources for her and the child, ensuring the child’s survival
        
        Female choosiness was illustrated by the study conducted by Clark and Hatfield (1989). They asked male and female student volunteers to approach opposite sex students individually on a university campus, asking the same question: ‘I’ve noticed you around the campus. I find you very attractive. Will you go to bed with me tonight?’ They found marked gender differences in the responses: 75% of male students agreed; however, not a single female said ‘yes’
        
        Women universally value high social status in a mate. American data showed women place great value on men having professional degrees. A lack of education is highly undesirable
        
        Averaged across cultures women appear to prefer men who are approx 3.5 years older than them
        
        Women consistently prefer men who are tall, physically strong and athletic. further evidence of this comes from an American study of replies to personal ads. Ads placed by taller men (that mentioned their height) received more replies than those placed by shorter men
        
        Women consistently rate good health as an important determinant in a mates attractiveness. Both men and women prefer mates with symmetrical faces and bodies
        
        It is likely that symmetry equates to fitness and ‘good genes’
        
        These people are less likely to have been affected by harmful mutation etc
        
        Also, people with attractive faces are preferred because of the benefits of passing on these attractive characteristics to offspring
      - males have much less certainty than females that the child they are raising is theirs. According to Buss (1995), this fact can explain the difference in jealousy between males and females: males tend to be more jealous of their partner’s sexual infidelity, because this could result in raising someone else's child; females, on the other hand, are more jealous of their partner’s emotional infidelity, as this may result in withdrawing of resources from the female and the child and puts the child’s survival at risk.
        This idea was supported by Buss et al. (1992): male students showed greater distress (measured by galvanic skin response) when asked to imagine partner’s sexual infidelity, while women were more distressed by thoughts of emotional infidelity
      - Buss (1989), who surveyed over 10,000 adults in 33 countries. Buss found that females universally put more importance on resource-related characteristics in a partner, such as ambition, high intelligence and good financial prospects. Males, however, preferred younger mates and put more value on signs of a female’s ability to reproduce, such as attractiveness and modesty
        
        supports mate preferences - men were found to value reproductive indicators, females value resource potential. Men prefer younger women possibly due to greater fertility
        
        However research may lack validity as it is based on questionnaires which show preferences but not what happens in real life
        
        yet real life studies also support evolutionary predictions - study on marriages in 29 cultures showed men choosing younger women
        
        yet this may be due to power - younger women are easier to control rather than fertility
        
        Cultural bias – Bus’s research may not have been representative. It was a large scale survey yet it underrepresented rural and less well educated individuals
        
        The sampling method also varied widely across different demographics
        
        Furthermore an analysis of 37 cultures found that women valued potential mates access to resources far more in those cultures where women’s status and educational opportunities were limited
        
        Suggesting that their reliance on men providing security and resources is due to cultural limitations rather than evolutionary preferences
  - - - EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH – can be seen as reductionist. It reduces partner choices to the genetic level i.e we are genetically predisposed to find certain features attractive
      - However there are different levels of explanation and socio-cultural explanations i.e. female choosiness can be explained by gender role socialisation together with evolutionary explanations may more aptly reflect the complex nature of relationships.
    - - The approach is also determinist as it suggests that we have no free will over partner choice
      - However this is a dangerous assumption. For example Thornhill and Thornhill 1992 controversially argued that men who are unable to mate are driven to select an alternative strategy – rape. They cite instances from the animal kingdom that would appear to legitimate their view of sexual behaviour
- - - - Self-esteem also influences this process. When a person is feeling low in self-esteem, it is more likely that they will target someone who is less likely to reject them. If, however, their self esteem is high, then they might believe that no one can reject them and may target people that they might otherwise consider as being ‘out of their league’.
    - - However, in relationships where partners are mismatched, there are several consequences. The less attractive partner may feel insecure and jealous of the attention given to their partner, or the less attractive partner may feel unattractive compared to their partner. It follows, then that mismatching may place strains on a couple and threaten long-term success of that relationship
      - Therefore, the matching hypothesis proposes that we don’t seek the most physically attractive person but that we are attracted to individuals who match us in terms of physical attraction. This compromise is necessary because of a fear of rejection (a more attractive person may reject your advances) and/or to achieve a balance between partners
    - - Murstein took photographs, first of 99 engaged couples, then of a separate sample of random people that posed as couples for the experiment.
      - Independent judges rated the photographs for physical attractiveness without knowing ‘who belonged to whom’. The couples had to rate their own and their partner’s physical attractiveness
      - Engaged couples received very similar ratings, and these were significantly more alike than the ratings given to ‘random couples’.
    - - 177 males and 170 females were randomly selected
      - Accomplices rated attractiveness as ppts collected their tickets
      - ppts completed questionnaires and told they would be used to match them into pairs
      - regardless of their own physical attractiveness, ppts responded more positiveley to physically attractive dates and were more likely to arrange subsequent dates if the partners were physically attractive
    - - In a further study to look at the matching hypothesis participants met before the computer dance and were given a choice of who to partner to the dance. They found that participants preferred someone who matched their own perceived physical attractiveness
    - - In a study of online dating patterns, they found evidence of an overall preference for attractive partners. In the initial stages of attraction daters aimed for people more desirable than themselves.
      - Those individuals who specifically targeted similarly attractive others were more likely to receive responses to their messages.
    - - Meltzer 2014 found that objective ratings of wives’ attractiveness positively related to levels of husbands’ satisfaction at the beginning and the first 4 years of marriage. While for women their partner’s attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact on relationship satisfaction.
      - However, this was not the only predictor of marital satisfaction for a man - both men and women desire partners who are supportive, trustworthy and warm. Less physically attractive women with these qualities do not tend to have less satisfied partners