1. Physical Attraction
1.1. Halo Effect
1.1.1. • Physical attractiveness may also matter because of the preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. • This is the physical attractiveness stereotype, a widely accepted view of attractive people which is summed up in a phrase coined by Dion (1972) – “What is beautiful is good.” • E.g. Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to unattractive people. • The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them – a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy
1.2. Matching Hypothesis
1.2.1. • The Hypothesis in stages. • The more socially desirable a person is in terms of physical attractiveness, social standing, intelligence, etc, the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be. • Couples who are matched are more likely to have happy, enduring relationships than couples who are mismatched in terms of social desirability. • A person rates a potential partner for attractiveness, and compares it with their own level of attractiveness. This comparison determines whether they will pursue the person as a potential mate.
1.3. A weakness for the matching hypothesis is research by Walster et al (1966). He got 752 ’freshers’ to fill in a questionnaire, after which they were told that they had been allocated an ideal partner for the evening of the dance. These pairings however, had been made at random on basis of their physical attractiveness. Students were asked how much they liked their date and if they wanted to see them again. They found that physical attractiveness was the single biggest predictor of how much each date had been liked by both male and the female participants. The desire of another date was determined by the attractiveness of the female, irrespective of the attractiveness of the male. This shows that the more attractive people are favoured than less attractive ones and physical attractiveness was found to be the most important factor, over intelligence so these findings don’t support the matching hypothesis.
1.4. A strength of the matching hypothesis is research by Murstein (1972) who provides contradicting findings to Walster as he found that physical attractiveness of couples was rated to be similar. He used photographs of the faces of ‘steady or engaged’ couples were compared with random couples. The real couples were consistently judged to be more similar to each other in levels of physical attractiveness than the random pairs. Murstein summarised the findings of the study as: ‘Individuals with equal market value for physical attractiveness are more likely to associate in an intimate relationship such as engagement than individuals with disparate values.’ This is important because it provides evidence and credibility for the matching hypothesis as he found correlation.
1.5. A strength of the halo effect is supporting evidence by Gunnell & Ceci (2010). Undergraduate subjects at Cornell University were provided with profiles of defendants in criminal trials and asked to assess their guilt and suggest a punishment. The profiles included information about the defendant’s race, gender, height, weight, and eye colour, and a high-resolution colour photograph, which previous subjects had coded as either attractive or unattractive. In addition, they were given a trial summary (these were all aggravated assault cases), transcripts of the attorneys’ closing arguments, and the judge’s instructions to the jury. The researchers found that unattractive defendants were 22% more likely to be convicted and, if convicted, spend an average of 22 months longer in prison than their better-looking counterparts. This supports the halo effect as the halo effect is a cognitive bias which occurs when a person has positive traits in personality as they are attractive and this is what this study shows.
1.5.1. A weakness of the halo effect is evidence by Hatfield and Sprecher (2009). They suggest that physical attractiveness is not the only factor when involved in couples. What a person may lack in physical attractiveness may make up in personality and wealth.
2. Filter Theory
2.1. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) studied student couples (mainly in short-term relationships of fewer than 18 months) and discovered several important criteria people use to choose a partner. They called these criteria ‘filters’, as they help people to sift through all potential partners to choose the right one.
2.1.1. •The first level is that of sociodemographic characteristics, such as physical proximity, level of education, social class and religion. •These factors are important because people are more likely to build relationships with people who are geographically close, and with whom they are meeting frequently, as this gives them a greater chance to find out more about one another given the greater accessibility. •People find similarities in education, social class and religious beliefs attractive, as this gives them assurance that relationships are more likely to move forward. (Field of available)
2.1.1.1. second level of filters that relates to the similarity of attitudes. •People tend to view others as more attractive if they share the same core beliefs and values, such as views on career and importance of family. •Byrne (1997) noted that similarity of attitudes is especially important in earlier stages of relationships, for couples who have been together fewer than 18 months. Presence or absence of similarities is discovered through self-disclosure, which leads to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple. •If partners have very little in common, however, relationships rarely develop beyond the first few dates and come to an end. (Field of desirables)
2.1.1.1.1. Although similarities are crucial at the early stages of relationships, Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) suggest that for long-term couples the third filter, complementarity, plays a much more important role.•Refers to each of the partnershaving some traits that the other partner lacks and helping each other to fulfil their needs. •Winch (1957) supports this view and found that similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples at the beginning of relationships, and complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships. •Complementarity is an appealing notion for partners as it appears that the coming together of two halves created a whole in the union of their relationship.
2.2. Kerckhoff and Davis’s (1962) study provides research support for the filter theory of romantic relationships with evidence that complementarity, as the third ‘filter’, is the most important in relationships over 18-months long in duration and before that time, similarity of attitudes is most important.
2.2.1. strength of the theory is that is supported by research by Gruber-Baldini et.al(1995). They carried out a longitudinal study across 7-year intervals from 1956-1984 with 169 couples. They found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship. In addition, positive spousal correlations were found for flexibility of attitude for those partners who had been together for longer than 21 years. This is important as it shows the credibilityof the theory and shows factors such as age is relevant
2.2.1.1. A weakness of theory is that it is not applicable to today's times compared to when it was made. Sociodemographic factors may not play as big a role in the development of relationships today, as the development of technology, such as dating websites and apps, greatly affects modern relationships. Compared with 20-30 years ago, people nowadays are more likely to develop relationships with someone who is not in their geographical proximity or from the same culture, making the Filter Theory’s claims less valid. This suggests that the Filter Theory lacks relevance to consider more modern methods of dating.
2.2.1.1.1. Another weakness with the theory is that researchby others cannot copy Kerckhoff and Davis 'originalfindings. Levenger (1974) claimed that this may be due to the difficulty of correlating length of relationships and depth of relationships, and of determining what constitutes short-term and long-term relationships. Kerckhoff and Davisset the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months, assuming that if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment. However, this doesn't apply to all heterosexual couples, nor does it describe the experience of homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures. Some couples take much longer than 18 months to establish similarity of attitudes and complementarity, while others skip sociodemographic filters altogether and feel they are ready to commit to long-term relationships earlier than the 18-month cut-off point. These experiences cannotbe explained by the theorywhich suggeststhat factors, such as the type of relationshipmay play a rolein the development of romantic relationships.
3. Economic Theory
3.1. Social Exchange Theory
3.1.1. Says that relationships are based on our own rewards and cost of a relationship. If the costs outweigh the rewards we will leave the relationship.
3.1.1.1. Thibaut and Kelley’s four stages and comparison levels. Sampling Bargaining Commitment Institutionalization
3.1.1.1.1. A criticism of all the ‘economic’ theories raised by Moghaddam is that they can only be seen to apply to western cultures. More than this even within western cultures it only really applies to individuals with high social mobility. (those who have the resources available to them to meet a variety of different people). Non western cultures and people with low social mobility may not have the luxury of being able to weigh up the costs and benefits of a relationship and then being able to leave a relationship if it doesn’t work for them. They may be more likely to value security in a relationship than personal gain. Therefore it can be said that these theories are only really applicable to a small sub group of people.
3.2. Equity Theory
3.2.1. Says a relationship is not just based on how much we can get out of it, but also on how fair the relationship is. It is not about equality it is about fairness.
3.2.1.1. Breakdown Intrapsychic Dyadic Social Grave Dressing
3.2.1.1.1. Mills & Clarke (1982) argue that it is not possible to assess equity in terms of loving relationships, as a lot of the input is emotional and unquantifiable. Consequently, it may be better to study romantic relationships using an idiographic approach which focuses on the qualitative experiences of individuals, rather than employing a nomothetic approach to generate universal laws for human relationships.
3.3. Investment Model
3.3.1. Differs from the other models as it says we also have to take into account how much we have invested into a relationship. The more we have invested into a relationship the less likely we are to end it.
3.3.1.1. Satisfaction Quality of alternatives ) Investment
3.3.1.1.1. One strength of the Investment Model is that it is supported by numerous research studies. For example, Le and Agnew (2003) found that satisfaction, comparison with alternatives and investment greatly contributed to commitment. This supports the model’s claims about the factors contributing to commitment and about commitment being the most promising feature in successful long-term relationships, and thereby increases the reliability of the model.
3.4. Ducks
3.4.1. This is different from all economic theory’s as it is about a relationships breakdown
3.4.1.1. Intrapsychic The Dyadic The Social Stage 4)The grave dressing stage.
3.4.1.1.1. A weakness of the research looking at the relationship breakdown is the dependence on retrospective data. For example, questionnaires occur after a long time which may interfere with memories of the partner, leading to unrealisable answers. This shows that the model cannot describe a relationship in real life which weakens the model’s ability to show an accurate representation
4. Virtual Relationships
4.1. varies according to whether the individual feels they are presenting information privately (e.g. private messaging) or publicly (e.g. their Facebook account). Disclosures to a public audience where the author’s identity is known are usually heavily edited. Disclosures to ‘private’ audiences, particularly when the author’s identity is anonymous, are often marked by quicker and more revealing disclosures. Online anonymity means that people do not fear the negative social consequences of disclosure in that they will not be judged negatively/punished for what would normally be judged as socially inappropriate disclosures.
4.1.1. Gating in relationships refers to a peripheral feature becoming a barrier to the connection between people. This gate could be a physical feature, such as somebody’s weight or a disfigurement, or a feature of one’s personality such as introversion or shyness. It may be that two people’s personalities are very compatible, and attraction would occur if they spoke for any length of time, but a gate prevents this from happening. In face-to-face relationships various factors influence the likelihood of a relationship starting in the 1st place: e.g. geographic location, social class, ethnicity, attractiveness, etc. These ‘gates’ are not present in virtual relationships and, in fact, people may mislead others online to form a false impression of their true identity: e.g. fake/photoshopped photos, females posing as males, etc.
4.1.1.1. Theory assumes that gates affect people in the same way but age and level of physical attractiveness are probably more gating factors for females seeking male partners than males seeking female partners – Research has suffered from a beta bias and oversimplified how gates are used in virtual relationships and is therefore less valid.
4.1.1.1.1. McKenna (2000) surveyed 568 internet users and found that just under 10% had gone on to physically meet friends who they had met online and just over 10% had talked on the phone. After a 2-year gap, 57% revealed that their virtual relationship had increased in intimacy. In terms of romantic relationships, 70% lasted 2 years or more compared to only 50% of relationships formed face-to-face.
5. Para Social Relationships
5.1. Parasocial relationships are one-sided relationships where one partner is unaware that they are apart of it.
5.1.1. usually directed towards media figures
5.1.1.1. formed because the individual lacks the social skills or opportunities to form a real relationship. PSRs do not involve risks present in real relationships such as criticism or rejection
5.1.1.1.1. Bowlby’s theory of attachment suggests that those who do not have a secure attachment earlier in life will have emotional difficulties and attachment disorders when they grow up. Parasocial relationships are often associated with teenagers and young adults who may have had less genuine relationships to build an internal working model which allows them to recognise parasocial relationships as abnormal.
6. Research in this area can be criticized for having a gender bias as the emphasis on short-term mating preferences has been on males•However, this desire in males would not have evolved if there weren’t willing females•This suggests that for females there are also overlooked potential benefits to casual sexual encounters•Greiling and Buss (2000) suggest that women profit by producing more genetically diverse offspring, or use it as a way of mate-switching
7. There is supporting evidence by Buss (1989) who supports the assumption that there are differences in sex in long-term mating preferences. He looked at what both genders from 37 cultures look for in partners. He found women preferred women who had good finical stability whereas men preferred physical appearances (fertility). However, both valued kindness and loyalty which was related to the skill set of parenting and commitment. This shows that intersexual selection is a relevant theory and is applicable.
8. Sexual Selection
8.1. Anisogamy
8.1.1. -Refers to the differences between male and female sex cells (gametes). -‘The sex which invests the most in producing offspring becomes a limiting resource over which the other sex will compete’. -Males produce many small gametes (sperm) -Females produce less and larger gametes. -Female egg production is limited to about 300 -Single male ejaculation may contain anywhere between 40-600 million sperm. -Since the female invests more in the production of an egg than the male does in the sperm, she is going to be discriminating in her choice of mate. -The female egg cell is much more costly to produce than a male sperm cell. -Females must nourish for the offspring for 9 months, which means she can only have a limited number of offspring. -By contrast, a male can have a virtually unlimited number of offspring -Anisogamy is also important in partner preference because it gives rise to two difference mating strategies, which is turn means there are two types of sexual selection
8.2. Intra Sexual Selection
8.2.1. •Within each sex: Strategies between males to be the one that is selected. •This is the preferred strategy of the male •quantity over quality. •It refers to the competition between (intra) males to be able to mate with a female.The winner of the competition reproduces and gets to pass on to his offspring the characteristics that contributed to his victory. •This strategy has given rise to sexual dimorphism in humans –the obvious differences between males and females. •In society today, men are known for wanting casual sex •Women on the other hand, are more careful with who they sleep with. •The more women a male sleepwith, the more likely they are to pass on their genes •The less time a male spends with one woman, the more chance they have to find someone else to impregnate. •It'san evolved strategy to ensure they don’t spend too much time with just one women •Females on the other hand can only get pregnant once in a certain period... •The logic of sexual selection suggests that the more females a male manages to impregnate, the greater his reproductive success. •However,the implications are greater for the woman as mating with a poor-qualitymale would lead to poor quality offspring. •Anisogamy dictates that the male’s optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible. This is because of the minimal energy required to produce enough sperm to theoretically fertilizeevery woman on earth, and the relative lack of post-coital responsibility the male carries (i.e. it’s the woman holding the baby). •For example, for males to acquire fertile females and protect them from competing males, they may benefit from behaving aggressively and perhaps even thinking in a certain way, •A behavioralconsequence of this competition for fertile mates is a distinct preference for youth and sensitivity to the indicators of youth (certain characteristics) as well as fertility (e.g.a certain body shape)
8.3. Inter Sexual Selection
8.3.1. •Between the sexes•The strategies that males use to select females or females use to select males.•Preference of one sex for the member of the opposite sex who has certain qualities. •quality over quantity. •Ova are rarer than sperm and require greater energy to produce. Also, as females make a greater investment of time, commitment, and other resources before, during and after the birth of their offspring. •Both sexes are choosy because they both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard partners. But the consequence of making the wrong choice of partner are much more serious for the female than for the male. •Women are likely to be choosier when selecting a mate. •Theymay choose a partner who can offer resources (food, territory, and protection). •This will enhance the female’s reproductive success, as any child she bears will have a greater chance of survival (and consequently, passing these genes on). •In modern times, this need for resources might not necessarily be food and shelter, but might be translated into money and status, and men with ambition and industriousness. •This leaves the males competing for the opportunity to mate with the fertile female. •Eg.If height is considered an attractive trait then, over successive generations of females, it would increase in the male population because females would mate with tall males, and over time, produce sons who are taller with each generation and produce daughters who have a greater preference for tall partners. •This is known as the ‘runaway process’. This is an adaptive feature will be selected for when females choose a sexual mate. This may result in a feature becoming exaggerated over many generation