Psychology Revision

Relationships
Relationships
Human Reproductive Behaviour
Sexual Selection
Darwin’s theory of natural selection suggests that the most successful
animals will end up with characteristics which enable them to out
perform their rivals, allowing them to find a suitable mate to pass on
their genes.

Whilst this seems to hold face validity, this approach has been
criticised because:
• It doesn’t take into account homosexuals
• Not everyone wants children
• Infertile people still have relationships
• Money and social issues are often more prominent than the desire to have
children
• Some people adopt children so are not passing on their own genes.
Sexual Dimorphism
Intra-sexual selection – This refers to competition for
reproduction between members of the same sex. This makes
males and females look different when they’re the same species.
For example, male and female peacocks look different.

Secondary characteristics are referred to in evolutionary terms as

“honesty indicators”. These do not help us survive but are
successful in making us attract a mate. They show quality in an
individual’s genetic inheritance and also show how good they are
at exploiting their environment. EG, A peacock’s tail indicates
that it can escape predators despite the inconvenience, and that
it can also find enough food to develop such a big tail.
What do we want?
Males Females
 Women with large breasts Security, this includes
and wide hips, indicating financial and emotional
fertility. security.
 Young women. Muscles indicating strength
 Women with symmetrical and ability to provide food
faces, indicating good and escape from predators.
nutrition throughout life. Men with deep voices,
indicating high testosterone
levels.
What do we want?
Buss (1989) aimed to investigate if there was a cross
cultural pattern to what human males and females
selected in males. He surveyed more than 10,000
people drawn from 37 cultures. Buss reported
consistent gender differences across cultures
supporting the evolutionary theory.
• This is reliable due to the large scope of cultures
involved and the size of the sample.
What do we want?
Waynforth and Dunbar (1995) were looking to see
whether the content of lonely heart adverts reflected
the evolutionary pressures to promote reproductive
success. They found 479 ads placed by makes, and 402
by females. Of this, they found men included more
indications of wealth in their own description whilst
women demanded wealth in a potential partner.
• This is bad because it is unreliable and invalid because of
it’s small and restricted sample size. The findings can not
be generalised to everyone as not everyone uses internet
ads and the sample size is relatively small.
The Market Place
Noe and Hmmerstein (1995) likened the process of sexual selection to a
biological market place: mate choice is a trade off between what you want
and what you have to offer. Individuals within a strong bargaining position
can increase their demand and be more selective in their mate choice.
Compos et al (2002) concluded that mate selection is determined by
“market value”. In personal ads they found that as women aged they became
less demanding of their potential mates. Males on the other hand become
more demanding.
However!
Strassberg and Holty (2003) placed 4 “female seeking male” ads on the
internet, each with slightly different wording. The most popular ad was
where the women said she was “financially independent”. It received 50%
more replies than other ads.
• Unethical – deception.
• Perhaps what is “fit” has now changed (job market)
Relationships
Evolutionary Adaptations/Behaviours
Sneak Copulation
This is when a non-dominant male makes sure that he
passes on his genes by distracting the dominant male
long enough to mate with the females, rather than
fighting.
This is observable in animals such as seals and lions.
• + Explains why some people cheat on their partners.
• - This is based largely on animal studies and therefore
can not be generalised to human beings.
• - Human beings don’t tend to have one dominant male
who controls a group of females.
 Sperm Competition
Sperm and testicles are adapted for competition with other males. For example, chimps
have large testicles so that they can mates lots of times in one day.
Sperm cells are also adapted to compete with other cells. Promishaw and Tartar pointed
out that humans have “blocker”, “killer”, “egg getter” and “family planning” sperm.
Wedell et al found that sperm counts very depending on the availability of females and the
amount of competition.
Packer and Pudsey also say that male lions who experience competition from other males
may male over 100 times a day but only ejaculated a limited amount of sperm each time.
Research showed that if men spent a long time away from their partners, they produced less
“egg getting” sperm. This is thought to be because the woman may have been unfaithful,
therefore the man doesn’t want to waste his energy producing good sperm.
Case studies have also shown that some women have twins from different father. 2.4% of D-
Z twins are thought to have different fathers.
- Methodology of the studies can be questioned with issues such as ability to be generalised when
referring to case studies and reliability of self report.
- Doesn’t account for homosexual relationships.
- Is this really applicable now that we have developed contraception?
+ Lots of supporting evidence using objective measures.
 The Female Orgasm
Baker and Bellis (1993) suggests that females are more than just passive providers
for egg fertilisation. In some non-human females, they are actually able to
ejaculate unwanted sperm. Orgasms are not necessary for conception, yet it has
been shown that the contractions of the muscles during an orgasm can actually
pull the sperm closer to the egg, therefore manipulating the outcome of the sperm
competition.
Shackleford et al (2000) found that when they asked volunteers at universities in
the US and Germany about their sex lives, those who rated their partners as being
the most attractive also reported more orgasms.
Pollet and Nettle (2009) used a large sample from the Chinese Health and Family
Life survey. They found a strong positive correlation between the income of the
partner and orgasms.
- Can not explain lesbianism.
- Contraception exists.
- Studies use self report which is open to bias.
- Unfalsifiable theory
+ Supporting research
 Sexy Son
Fisher (1930) suggests that women select men who have
secondary sexual characteristics so that their children will
be able to find a mate more easily.
This can be observed in animals such as barn swallows or
peacocks.
- Uses animal observation studies
- Isn’t scientific as what is “sexy” changes over time
- Unfalsifiable
 Good Genes/Handicap Process
Zahavi (1975) suggested that men who were considered to be
“handicapped” but still managed to survive were seen as being
“genetically superior”.
This included people who manage to run a sports car and still have
enough money to survive, or a man who has battle scars but managed to
survive the fight.
Observations of peacocks suggest that it is about the density of the
feathers, rather than the length. To grow such a dense tail, the peacock
will have had to have constant nutrition, as well as the ability to escape
predators as its tail is even heavier than usual.
- Animal based.
- Sports cars etc aren’t considered a handicap.
- Reductionist.
- Doesn’t explain why some people stay with their partners despite losing
resources.
 Creativity
Some psychologists believe that creativity in males is merely to
attract females.
A study involving 35 men and 56 women was conducted, in which
participants were asked to write a short story. They were then shown
a picture of an attractive person and asked to write about their first
date with a person of their choice. Independent judges rated each
story for creativity. It was found that, compared to the women’s
results, their creativity increased when given a sexual stimulus.
- Small sample size.
- What is “creative” is subjective.
- Repeated measures so risk of order effects.
- Sexist? What about female artists?
- Some people use art as a form of expression.
- Not all women are attracted to creative men.
Relationships
Differences between male and female parenting
Bateman’s Principle (1948)
Females always invest energy into producing offspring,
more so than males, thus they have a limited number
of children they can have.
Economically, sperm cells are cheaper than eggs as a
woman has a set number of eggs whilst a man can keep
producing sperm. This means that men tend to be
promiscuous whilst women tend to be selective.
Bateman did a study using fruit flies and found that
the males had a greater variation of mates than the
females.
Triver’s Theory
Due to offspring being taxing and demanding of nutrients and time,
some species invest more into their offspring to ensure success and
continuation of genes.
Clarke and Hatfield (1989) asked strangers on a university campus if
they would go out with them, go home with them or go to bed with
them. Of the 96 students asked, 75% of men would go to bed with them
whilst no women would, whilst 50% of women were more likely to go out
with them in order to get to know them.
Hoffman et al (2007) found that female fur seals tend to spend around
10 years with their offspring whilst males never saw them. The females
were more picky with mates.
- Socially desirable answers may have been given.
- Animal studies
- + Human society seems to agree with this theory, however culturally, we
are against male-child abandonment.
Relationships
Conflict within families
Parent-Offspring Conflict
This tends to occur when children demand resources from parents
such as toys etc. Issues also occur when choosing mates.
Apostolou (2008) interviewed 292 parents about the mate choice
for their children. They asked them to rate whether factors such as
personality, intellect, financial stability and looks were important
to them when finding a mate, and then important to them when
finding a mate for their children. Most characteristics were equally
important, but parents tended to rate looks as an important factor
for them when finding a mate, but not important for their children.
- Self report is unreliable as this is a socially sensitive issue so parents
may have given desirable answers.
- Small sample size
Step family Conflict
When families are reconstituted, there are step /half siblings in the family.
This often leads to more conflict.
Daly and Wilson found that step fathers are more likely to abuse or kill
non-biologically related children.
Simpson (1999) said that half siblings share 25% of your genes. This means
to pass on genes, 4 siblings must survive when it would be easier just to
survive yourself. This means they demand 4 times as much investment in
order to compete with siblings. This leads to an extended period of parent-
offspring conflict.
- Over simplistic in terms of shared genes.
- Reductionist as it doesn’t take into account factors such as attachment.
- Ignores the resources a parent has to give.
- Takes out personal experience.
- Implies that families with adopted children have more conflict.
Young family Conflict
Simpson (1999) found that younger mothers have
more chance to have offspring so they can afford to
“mess up” with a few. This means that younger
mothers tend to have more conflict with their oldest
children, whilst older mothers tend to have less
conflict with children as they have less opportunity to
have more children.
- Over simplistic.
- Doesn’t take into account issues such as finances or
social situation.
Relationships
Formation and maintenance of romantic relationships
Reward Theory
The reward theory states that people get into
relationships based on how much reward they will
gain from it. Research indicates that several factors
affect initial attraction as a result of their reward value
or need satisfaction.
These include:
1. Proximity
2. Exposure/Familiarity
3. Similarity
4. Physical Attraction
 Reward Theory - Proximity
Festinger (1950) stated that proximity is “the single best predictor of attraction”.
He surveyed students living in halls of residence and asked who they spent most of
their time with and who they regarded as friends. His research followed them
throughout the year. He found that 41% of them considered their next door
neighbour to be a close friend, whilst only 22% thought the person living two doors
down was a close friend and only 10% were good friends with the person living at the
opposite end of the hallway.
Hall (1977) identified 3 zones of personal space: Intimate, Casual and Public. He
states that people who come into the intimate zone are more likely to be found
attractive.

- Self report
- Modern technology changes the effects of proximity.
- Lacks temporal validity as the development of phones and transport make distances
seem shorter.
- Some people have long distance relationships
+ Has face validity
 Reward Theory - Exposure
Proximity increases exposure and familiarity. Evidence suggests that the more we get to
know someone, the more we grow to be comfortable with them, there fore, exposure and
familiarity become rewarding.
Moreland and Beach (1992) asked a woman to go into 4 different classes a different
number of times. At the end of the term, the students were asked to rate the woman’s
attractiveness. They found that the more time the woman attended, the more favourable
her rating became.
Zajonc (1968) asked participants to rate the attractiveness of people’s faces in a sequence.
He noted that if the face appeared more times, the rating went up.

HOWEVER

Argyle (1983) found that the more people interact, the more they know about each other
and the more polarised their attitudes towards each other become. Thus, people either love
or hate each other.
Norton et al (2007) says that familiarity breeds contempt. He suggests that people are
attractive when familiar but only when we don’t know a lot about them. Too much
information makes them less attractive.
 Reward Theory - Similarity
People are more likely to be attracted to each other if they
share similar attitudes, beliefs and values.
Rubin(1973) argued that similarity is rewarding, especially
the notion of reciprocal liking.
Rubin gave students different amounts of information
about potential dates and then asked to rate how attractive
they were. He discovered that the more participants knew,
the more they were likely to find differences and rate them
lower.
Newcomb found that students in boarding schools
identified more with those who were similar to them in sex,
race, age and year group.
Reward Theory - Physical attractiveness
Dion (1972) proposed the concept of the attractiveness stereotype. We
tend to assume that attractive people also have attractive personalities
(halo effect).
Clifford and Walster (1973) found that teachers judge attractive students
as more intelligent than unattractive students.
Downs and Lyons (1991) discovered that Texas judges set lower bail and
smaller fines for attractive suspects.
Walster (1966) got students to fill in questionnaires before pairing them
up with a random person. He told them that they had been matched up
by a computer but it was a lie. After the date, he asked the men to do
another questionnaire which asked if they would go out with the girl
again. He found that physical attraction was the more important
predictor of whether the man would ask the girl out again.
Murstein also found that people were more likely to marry someone with
a similar rating of attractiveness.
Reward Theory
Positive
Much evidence supporting the
theory.
Face validity and is supported
by every day experiences.
Explains findings well. The
theory explains why factors
such as proximity and physical
attractiveness are important.
Inspiring research.
High ecological validity
Negative
Makes human beings sound
selfish as they are only concerned
with the amount of reward they
receive.
Some studies lack temporal
validity.
Reductionist as it doesn’t take
into account other approaches or
emotions.
There are many gender and
cultural differences.
It doesn’t account for
“unrewarding” relationships
Social Exchange Theory
This assumes that humans are essentially selfish and
that we calculate the value of relationships in terms of
economic principles. Costs VS. benefits.

There are three types of SET, these are:

The Matching Hypothesis
Equity Theory
Comparison Level
SET – Matching Hyp
Murstein (1972) stated that people tend to date and
marry others with similar levels of attractiveness.

This happens because people want to date attractive

others but rejection hurts. This possibility of rejection
makes people more realistic, therefore they go for
people of similar attractiveness.
SET – Equity Theory
This type of SET considers an addition to costs and
rewards: investment.

In this sense, equity is concerned with fairness; a

consistent and proportionate balance of rewards and costs
between two people is viewed as fair, but if this proportion
changes so that one person begins to feel it is unfair, they
may change how they feel about the relationship.
Hatfield et al (1972) interviewed over 500 students about
equity in their relationships. Three months later the
inequitable relationships were more likely to have ended.
SET – Comparison Level
Thibault and Kelly (1959) created a formula to work out
whether relationships will be successful or not. This
includes the average rating from past relationships (apr)
and the current self-perceived market value(cspmv).

If current reward:cost < apr = unsatisfying relationship

If current r:c > apr = satisfying relation
If current r:c >= cspmv = satisfying relationship
If current r:c < cspmv = unsatisfying relationship
Social Exchange Theory
Positive
Created on an objective measure.
Takes into account individual
differences and past experience.
Considers self esteem.
Has face validity.
High ecological validity.
Can explain “unfair”
relationships because of low self-
esteem.
Accounts for individual taste
choice etc.
Negative
Makes human beings sound
selfish.
Reductionist as it doesn’t take
into account other approaches or
emotions.
There are many gender and
cultural differences.
Doesn’t account well for abusive
relationships.
Culture biased towards western
cultures who choose their own
partners.
Stage Theory - Filter model
Kerchoff and Davis (1962): The filter model is where
people filter out others who we don’t get on with or
don’t have things in common with.
First filter: similarity of sociological/demographic
variables. EG, gender, age, ethnicity, proximity.
Second filter: psychological characteristics. EG,
personality, competence, IQ.
Third filter: complementarity of emotional needs. EG
similarities, emotional compatibility.
Stage Theory - stimulus value role theory
Stimulus stage – we evaluate the other person in terms
of physical attributes. We ate generally attracted to
people of a similar age, appearance and ethnicity.
Value stage – We compare their values with ours and
decide whether we are sufficiently compatible enough to
continue the relationship. We look at views like religion,
sex, careers and families.
Role stage – We share out activities to build a working
relationship. It helps if preferences for these are
complementary although role attitudes must be similar.
Stage Theory
Positive
Takes into account emotions and
needs.
Takes into account individual
differences.
Has face validity.
High ecological validity.
Explains why some people have a
more gradual breakup.
Accounts for individual taste
choice etc.
Accounts for the whole of the
relationship.
Negative
In the real world, we compromise
a lot more.
Does not focus on the influence of
family and friends.
There are many gender and
cultural differences.
Doesn’t account well for abusive
relationships.
Culture biased towards western
cultures who choose their own
partners.
Not a lot of evidence.
Relationships
Breakdown of romantic relationships
Theory of Relationship Dissolution
Duck (2001) identified 3 reasons why relationships go
wrong:
Pre-existing Doom – couples who are badly matched from the start,
no matter what the initial involved, the subsequent actions could not
overcome personal differences and needs.

Mechanical Failure – When communication is poor or interactions

go badly. EG, aggression, arguing, violence.

Sudden Death – New information on a partner can produce sudden

death. EG, violation of trust.
Theory of Relationship Dissolution
Duck also identified 4 phases in a break up, they can
happen over time or come all at once. They are:
Intrapsychic phase – internal reflection and acknowledgement
of dissatisfaction.
Dyadic phase – discussion with partner which may include
confrontation.
Social phase – discussion with friends or family about problems.
Grave-dressing phase – making a satisfying story about the
history and reason for break-up of the relationship in a way that
makes us feel better.
Theory of Relationship Dissolution
Positive Negative
Has good face validity Culture biased
Takes into account individual Not all relationships that
differences in relationships have “pre-existing doom”
actually fail
Infalsifiable
Some people skip stages in
the relationship breakdown.
The Four Horsemen
Gottsman claimed that he can watch a couple and tell
whether they will last. He started his study in 1983. The study
included 197 couples who were recruited by volunteer
sampling. He used 2 scales of satisfaction for reliability. 85
couples were selected for his further study in which he sent
them to a B&B for a weekend and recorded everything they
said and did. This was then evaluated by independent judges.
Gottsman and Levenson (1992) identified a pattern of
negative communication shown by unhappy couples. He said
that those who displayed “the four horsemen of the
apocalypse” broke up in an average of 5.6 years.
The Four Horsemen
The four horsemen are:
Criticism eg verbal attacks.
Defensiveness eg claiming to always be right
Contempt eg scorn for partner
Stonewalling – refusing to acknowledge or discuss problems.
Gottsman also found that in 2002, 21 couples had divorced.
He found two patterns:
Unregulated volatile effect – anger etc, couples often divorced
after 5 years.
A neutral affective style – apathetic loss of interest, little
affection shown. Couples divorced after mid-life of relationship.
From this he produced a 2 factor model to predict breakups.
The Four Horsemen
Positive
Has good face validity
Longitudinal study so has high
reliability and less bias.
Different measures make it
objective and not reductionist.
Independent judges make it less
biased.
Negative
Culture biased
Longitudinal study may result in
attrition.
Lacks ecological validity.
Some people display the four
horsemen but still have long
relationships.
Some people stay in relationships
even though they’re not happy for
the sake of children or fear of
lonliness.
Doesn’t take individual differences
into account.
Evaluations of all theories!
Heterosexual bias – traditional theories have focussed
on heterosexual couples who are usually married or
engaged.
 Wilkinson and Kitzinger(2005) examined the legal status of
same-sex marriages in different countries, revealing that same-sex
marriages are not acknowledged or legal in over 80% of the world.
Electronic relationships – cyber relationships are one
of the most unexpected uses of the internet, yet they are
not often studied.
 Grithiths (2000) found that over 1000 weddings have resulted
from internet meetings.
 Lawson and Deck (2006) found that internet daters use the

internet because they found it easier to create a good impression.

Relationships
Influence of childhood on adult relationships
Attachment Theory
Bowlby’s attachment theory states that a child’s attachment
affects their ability to have a secure relationship in life. If a
child hasn’t formed a secure bond by the age of 2, they will
never be able to form a secure relationship in life.
Ainsworth identified 3 types of attachment:
Secure
Anxious avoidant
Anxious resistant
According to research, those who formed anxious
attachments find it difficult to have successful relationships.
 Attachment Theory
Belskey (1999) gave couples problem solving tasks. They noted that secure men
were more likely to be supportive and positive when interacting with partners
than insecure men.
Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994) followed a sample of over 300 dating couples and
found that secure males and females were more likely to have secure
relationships.
Hazan et al (1994) found that anxious avoidant individuals preferred purely
sexual contact to emotionally intimate contact.
Belskey (1999) concluded that relationships with anxious avoidant people tend
to be short lived.
Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994) say that insecure men were more likely to be
dating more than one person at once.
Miller and Fishkin (1997) report that insecure men desired more sexual
partners when asked to suggest how many they would want in the next 30 years.
Attachment Theory
Positive
Face validity
Counselling sessions are
based around this theory
Lots of supporting research
Explains some of the issues
people tend to have
Negative
Culture biased
Fails to take into consideration any
experience after 2 years of age eg, if
child is let down repeatedly from the
age of 4, it will affect them.
Perhaps some research is invalid,
preference for sexual activity may be
solely preference for sex and have
nothing to do with attachment
AWFULLY DETERMINISTIC!
Retrospective data to find
attachment type which is open to
bias.
Relationships
Influence of adolescence on adult relationships
Adolescence
Adolescence is a crucial period in development, marked by the
increased importance of close friendships and the emergence of
adult relationships.
Hendry (1993) pointed out that during adolescence, close
friends surpass parents as the primary source of social support.
Carver et al (2003) say that by 16, most adolescents have
experienced a romantic relationship.
Larson(1996) used pagers to text 10-18 year olds and see what
they were doing during the day. He found that time with
parents decreased but time spent with friends increased. This
suggest that adolescent relationships supplement parent
relationships, but don’t replace them.
Interaction with peers
It is thought that in adolescence, attachment shifts
from parents to peers for a number of reasons:
Separation in order to redirect “intense interpersonal
energy” towards their romantic partners.
Allow them to gain emotional and physical intimacy
that is different to experience with parents.
Practice
Effects of adolescent relationships
Madson(2001) found that if teenagers had a
low/moderate dating frequency they had higher quality
adult relationships whereas high dating frequency
predicted low quality relationships.
Haynie (2003) found that romantic relationships
increase some forms of deviance by as much as 35%.
Roiseman (2004) found no negative effect of romantic
experiences by the age of 20 on romantic relationships at
the age of 30, suggesting no evidence that adolescent
relationships are the “building blocks” of adult
relationships.
Parents and Peers
Allen and Land (1999) concluded that adult
relationships were based on an individual’s internal
model of relationships formed from their parental
relationships, plus their experience in adolescence.
Coleman and Hendry (1999) say that relationships
that were the most healthy were when children were
still connected to their parents.
Adolescence
Positive Negative
Face validity Ethnocentric– in some cultures
adolescence doesn’t exist.
Logical explanation as Temporal validity issues
motives, maturity and Deterministic
personality changes as we Biased samples used in research, EG
grow up. only used participants with two parents
Not all relationships are the same so
you can’t “practise”
How do you measure the quality of
relationships? Subjective measure.
Maybe the frequency of relationships
were caused by bad personality which is
also why future relationships are poor
Some people may enter adolescences at
a different age, individual differences.
Relationships
Cultural differences in relationships
Culture
Although all cultures seem to appreciate symmetry, beauty remains
subjective. Over time what we see as attractive changes eg, Marilyn
Monroe and Kate Moss. They’re very different but have both been
considered extremely attractive at different times.
Several psychologists have identified situational factors affect our
judgement of beauty such as:
Gross and Crofton (1977): liking increases ratings of attractiveness
Johnson and Rusbult (1989): Love decreases rating of attractiveness of
other people
Kenrick et al (1987): Men who viewed playboy or penthouse mags found
their wives less attractive than those who didn’t
However, Cunningham (1995) found that latino, asian, white and black
students rated people from different times and races attractive to the
same levels.
Voluntary and Non-voluntary relationships
Voluntary Relationships
 Voluntary relationships tend to occur more in 
individualist societies (Western Cultures).
 Individualist societies place emphasis on the 
individual’s freedom, achievements and rights.
Therefore relationships are formed for individual
happiness and are mostly voluntary, where a person
chooses their own partner.
 In voluntary relationships, marriage is seen as a step 
away from dependence on families as the couple take
steps to begin their own family.
 Voluntary relationships are seen as being “worthless” 
without romantic love.
 Voluntary relationships tend to have a higher divorce 
rate than non voluntary relationships. Goodwin (1999)
found that the US divorce rate is 40-50%.
 Levine et al found that people in collectivist cultures
Non-Voluntary Relationships
Non voluntary relationships occur in collectivist
societies (Eastern Cultures).
Collectivist societies see the individuals as part of an
interdependent social group. Obligation to others for
the good of the group are extremely important, thus
marriages are arranged to ensure benefits for the
group, not only the individuals involved.
In non voluntary relationships, extended families are
more likely to live together, providing more support for
each other.
Arranged marriages revolve around the idea of
stability rather than romantic love.
Non voluntary relationships tend to have a lower
divorce rate than voluntary relationships. Goodwin
(1999) found that divorce rate in Saudi Arabia is as low
as 2%.
were more likely to marry without love but with the
right qualities.