Relationships

The nature of sexual selection:

Intrasexual selection - members of the same sex compete for one of the opposite sex

Intersexual - evolved to develop preferences to specific desirable qualities in potential mates

Sexual selection and long-term mate preferences:

Females most attracted to males who provide resources 

Males attracted to women who show signals of fertility 

Key study: Buss et al (1989)

males and females from 37 diff cults, rate 18 charactaristics they liked in a mate -- women looked for men with good financial propsects, men attractivness and youth

Eval:

Cult traditions, pref for high status men is weak (females), females choose creative males because of the adaptive value of creativity and ingenuity, female mate choice is not consistent but varies across the menstrual cycle

• Greater disclosure leads to greater intimacy
• Self disclosure recieved is a better predictor in liking and loving than level of S-D given.
• Norms include appropriate level of S-D and reciprocity.

Key Study: Sprecher et al (2013)

• Students paired in reciprocal or non-reciprocal dyads and assessed for liking of the other person.
• Those in reciprocal dyads showed higher levels of liking than those in non reciprocal dyads. 

Evaluation:

• Collins and Miller (1994) - supports central role that S-D plays in the development and maintenance of romantic rships - people who engage in intimate disclosures are more liked than those who do not.
• 'Boom and Bust' phenomenon (Cooper and Sportelari, 1997) - 'boom', reveal intimate details about self more than wouold face-to-face, 'bust', lacking in trust and and true knowledge of other person, difficult to sustain.
• Knop et al (2016) - self disclosure greater in face-to-face encounters than online relationships.
• Cultural differences in levels of self-disclosure, Americans disclose more than Chinese (Chen)

• Men place importance on physical attractiveness in a mate. 
• Matching hypothesis - individuals seek partners whose social desirablity approximately equals their own.

Walster and Walster (1966)

• male and female students completed questionnaires and rated for physical attractiveness.
• allocated random partner thinking they were paired on matching personality and intelligence. 
• ppts responded more positively is partner was physically attractive rather than 'matched'.

Evaluation:

• speed dating and the challenge to traditional views of attraction - Eastwick and Fickel found no gender differences in importance of physical attractiveness. 
• Value of physical attractiveness may not predict real-life partner choice. 
• Complex matching - person may compensate a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities.
• Matching may not be that important in initial attraction - Taylor et al 
• Implications of sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness - Meltzer et al

• We chose partners by using a series of filters, narrowing down the 'field of availables'. 
• Different filters prominent at different stages, eg. courtship 
• Social demographic variables important in initial stages; similarity of attitudes important for the next stage. 
• Complimentarity of needs - people are attracted to those whos needs are 'harmonious' with their own. 

Kerchoff and David (1962)

• P: Couples completed questionnaires of shared attitudes and values and degree of need complimentarity.
• F: dating >18mnths - similarity most significant predictor of closeness, <18mnths - complimentarity of needs predictive of closeness. 

Evaluation:

• Lack of research to support theory -Levinger et al. -failed to replicate predictions
• Filtering allows people to avoid investing in rships that wont work out (Duck)
• percieved similarity predicts attraction more than actual similarities (Hoyle)
• Complimentairty of needs not as important as similarity of attitudes
• Many people are not aware of their partners' values, needs, etc. (Thornton and Young-DeMarco)

• Individuals attempt to maximise their rewards within a relationship 
• Commitment to a relationship is dependent on its profitablity
• Comparison level - experiences with previous relationships set the standard for current one.
• Comparison level for alternatives - person considers potential increase in rewards from a different partner. 

Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)

• P: Investigated importance of social exchange factors in heterosexual and same-sex couples.
  
• F: Satisfaction for all couples determined by perception of many benefits (CL), and alternatives seen as less attractive (CLA)

Evaluation:

• Sprecher - support for influence of comparison level for alternatives
• Limitations - difficult to determine what is a cost and what is a benefit - problem assessing the relative value of costs and benefits - overemphasis on costs and benefits rather than rational standards.
• RWA - Use of integrated Behaviour Couples Therapy.

• when one partner's benefits minus their costs equals their partner's benefits less their costs
• being under or over-benefited = inequity, leading to distress 
• Schafer and Keith - inequity more likely to be percieved during child-rearing years.
• Hatfield and Rapson - concern with inequity, dependent on stage of the relationship
• dealing with inequity - restoration of actual equity, psychological equity or leaving relationship

Stafford and Canary (2006)

• P: 200 married couples completed measures of equity and rship satisfaction 
• F: Satisfaction highest when releationship percieved to be equitable

Evaluation:

• equity sensitivity - not all individuals experience equity in the same way
• gender differences in importance of equity - eg. women feel more guilt than men when over-benefited.
• Amber-Ryan et al. - all cultures considered equity important in relationships, although cultural differences in how equitable rships actually are. 
• capuchin monkeys became angry at lack of fairness.

• Satisfaction level = positive versus negative emotions experienced in a rship
• quality of alternatives - assessment of whether these needs are better fulfilled outside the rship 
• Investment size - a measure of all the resources that are attached to the rship and which would be lost
• commitment level - describes the likelihood the rship will persist
• high levels of satisfaction plus high investment = increasing dependence on rship = high commitment 

Le and Agnew (2003)

• P: meta-analysis of 52 studies of diff components of the investment model
• F: all three components highly correlated with relationship commitment with satisfaction level most correlated.

Evaluation:

• Difficult to measure variables of model, includig reliance of self-report measures. 
• RWA - could explain abusive relationships 
• 'Investment' should also include plans made, ie. notion of future investment as well as past investment. 
• Main claims shown to be true across different cultures and types of relationship 

Duck's Relationship Breakdown Model

Breakdown - first phase begins when one person feels dissaftisfied with the rship

Instrapsychic - individual broods over the rship and re-evaluates alternatives

Dyadic - individual confronts their partner to discuss their dissatisfaction

Social - dissatisfaction discussed with network of family and friends

Grave-dressing - parters construct a respresentation of the failed rship that does not paint their contribution to it in unfavourable terms

Evaluation:

• model fails to reflect posibility of personal growth, hence addition of last step 
• impact of social processes varies by type of relationship. less advice about reconcilliation in younger rships
• benefits of grave-dressing phase - stories protect person's psychological well-being
• ethical issues in breakdown research due to vulnerability of the potential ppts

Self-disclosure in virtual rships:

• People present 'edited' verison of self over social media (broadcasting self-disclosure).
• Different levels of self-disclosure dependent on whether it is a public or private presentation.
• Confident to self-disclose on the internet (anonymity) -- 'strangers on a train' effect.

Absence of gating

• Barriers that limit opportunities for less attractive/shy individuals to form face-to-face rships are absent in virtual rships. 
• Online social networks empower 'gated' individuals to present identities they are unable to in face-to-face situations (Zhao et al) 
• Online environment enables people to project a more socially desirable self than 'offline' identity. (Yurchisin et al)

Evaluation

• Rosenfield and Thomas found individuals with internet access far more likely to be partnered. - they also found no evidence that virtual rships were of lower quality.
• Virtual rships good for shy people 
• Biological basis for motivational behav toward rships

• Appealing because they make few demands and no risk of rejection
• PSRs likely to form with characters considered attractive and similar to the viewer (homophily)

The Aborption-Addiction Model (A-A):

• Absorption may become addictive leading to more extreme behaviours to sustain satisfaction.
• Giles and Maltby - three levels of PSR - entertainment-social; intense-personal; borderline-pathological.

Attachment Theory

• PSRs exhibit the same properties of adult attachment identified by Weiss.
• Proximity seeking; Secure base; Protest at disruption
• Individuals with insecure-avoidant attachment most likely to form PSR, least likely to form real-life rships 

Evaluation

• Parasocial relationships linked to lonliness (Greenwood and Long) other research suggests otherwise (Chory-Assad and Yanen)
• Absorption- addiction model linked to mental health (Maltby)
• Cult similarities in PSRs
• Impact of loss of PSR linked to attachment style (Cohen)